SOOT, POLAR BEARS & COST-EFFECTIVENESS

An email from Lee Rodgers [sregdoreel@yahoo.com]

I've been keeping an irregular blog on the climatological effects of tropospheric soot. Contrary to conventional opinion, tropospheric soot has been shown in real field data to cause a net heating effect with up to a 40 percent role in temperature anomalies across the vast Pacific region (alone that'd be 12 percent globally), possibly 35 percent worldwide. Likewise the ice-melting effects of snow-darkening soot in the boreal environment is believed to have caused most of the sesquicentennial thaw in the region, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all global warming in the past two centuries.

Pressing this point have been the parallel efforts of two very conventional climate researchers: Drs. V. Ramanathan and Charlie Zender. Dr. Zender has essentially stated this: That with the albedo-blunting effects of soot being equal to that of extant CO2 warming the benefits of significant soot mitigation in the Arctic would be like cutting CO2 levels by a two thirds (or more). The magnitude of global warming in the Arctic approaches that of 20 percent of all sesquicentennial global warming, and amending the Arctic melt through soot abatement has a far greater impact than mitigating CO2 emissions in an equivalent region elsewhere in the world.

Dr. Ramanathan makes similar points that the the efficacy of soot mitigation is such that societies could broaden the window of opportunity up to 20 years against climate change by simply cleaning up various sources of soot. The higher concentrations of aerosol pollutants in the Northern Hemisphere may be reflected in a notable bias of temperature anomalies north of the equator. Soot mitigation has an immediate effect as opposed to waiting 50 years for the effects of an equivalent reduction of CO2 to finally have an effect.

See my blog here

The odds are poor that humanity will ever curtail CO2 emissions fast enough against even the mid-case global warming scenarios forecast by climatologists. Soot mitigation is a crucial stopgap measure that needs to be discussed openly and measures taken to implement this completely feasible and cost-effective climate change and pollution reduction measure.

Many environmental organizations are well aware of the evidence against soot in the Arctic and its net heating effects in the air but have chosen to focus on CO2 reductions. However to subsume the evidence against soot under the rubric of "carbon emissions" for fear of diluting the message about CO2 would be an act of brinksmanship if the activists are to be taken for their word.

This is in fact what environmental activists have done in hopes of getting the bigger prize of CO2 reductions. To trumpet the environmental stresses suffered by polar bears without mentioning sootfall in the Arctic and Subarctic is contradictory to the stated goal of protecting the boreal environment of the bears as well as climate remediation, especially considering the real-world risk of continued greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, the odds are not good that societies will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions at rate sufficient to head off any rate of warming that could pose any real risk. The belief that it's possible to do otherwise may well run up hard against the vast inertia of human society as industrialized countries grapple with trade deficits and other cost overheads while developing nations ramp up industry and big agriculture in pursuit of feeding and advancing the lives of their increasing multitudes.






PEANUTS! TOUGH CLIMATE GOALS ONLY COST $45 TRILLION BY 2050

A goal to halve planet-warming carbon emissions by 2050, similar to an aim Japan is urging G8 leaders to agree next month, would add $45 trillion to global energy bills, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday. "It's a lot of money," IEA analyst Peter Taylor told a meeting on the fringes of a climate conference in Germany, previewing the agency's Energy Technology Perspectives report to be published in Japan on Friday. "It implies a completely different energy system," he said.

For example, electricity from renewable sources such as hydropower and the wind would reach close to half all power production, compared to 18 percent now, Taylor told Reuters.

Scientists say that the world must brake and reverse annual increases in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change including rising seas and more extreme weather.

Japan last week urged leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations to set a global target to halve greenhouse gases by 2050, when they meet at a G8 summit in Toyako, northern Japan, next month. The IEA took 2005 as its base level in calculating the cost of halving emissions of the commonest manmade greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 2050 -- a very ambitious goal which it hadn't previously estimated. That would require an extra $45 trillion investment in energy supply and demand through 2050 compared to a baseline of business as usual, said the energy adviser to 27 rich nations.

More here





CLIMATE CHANGE COLLAPSE

Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it's time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.

Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. "With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade," says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. "This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan."

It's a good analogy. Originally, Hillary health care had towering levels of support, but once people looked at the cost and complexity they cringed. Jobs were on the mind yesterday of Senator Arlen Specter, who has endorsed a tamer version of cap-and-trade. "Workers in Pennsylvania worry that this will send jobs to China," he tells me. They're smart to worry. Look no further than the failure of the Kyoto countries to live up to their promised emissions cuts. Bjorn Lomborg, the author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, tells me: "The Europeans are so far behind schedule, it is almost inconceivable that they will meet their targets."

Even John McCain, a cap-and-trade original co-sponsor, now says that this scheme won't fly until China and India sign on -- which could be never.

Senators also criticized Warner-Lieberman's failure to clearly specify what would happen with the vast revenues the climate bill would generate -- some $1 trillion over the first decade, which environmental groups wanted as a slush fund to finance "green technologies." Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire insisted the proceeds be used for other tax cuts, like the elimination of the corporate income tax. The Natural Resources Defense Council desperately tried to persuade Congress in the 11th hour that the expensive price tag is a bargain because "the cost of inaction" would reach $1.8 trillion by 2100 due to increased hurricanes and rising oceans -- an argument without a shred of scientific or fiscal credibility.

Republicans in the Senate this week did such a masterful job of picking the cap-and-trade bill apart with objections, yesterday Barbara Boxer of California was "pulling her hair out with frustration, " as one Republican leadership staffer put it.

Environmentalists have always eyed 2009 as the real target year for enactment. But there was no show of strength this week and cap-and-trade may have reached its political high water mark. Conservatives at least are in a far stronger position now to demand major pro-growth tax cuts in exchange for new global warming taxes.

Source





BRITISH TORIES WARN BROWN HIS OWN PARTY WILL DITCH HIM IF HE DOES NOT SCRAP GREEN TAX RISES

Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown's leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions.

Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called 'deeply unpopular and unenvironmental' changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers' Questions: 'If you don't get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.'

Already 40 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion and calling for a rethink - enough to wipe out the party's majority if they join forces with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. What one backbencher has called Labour's 'poll tax on wheels' looks increasingly likely to turn into a re-run of the fiasco over the scrapping of the 10p tax rate. MPs fear less well-off drivers - who are unable to afford to change their vehicles - will be worst hit.

Privately, senior ministers expect the Government to have to back down - particularly over a proposal to apply road tax increases retrospectively.... Mr Brown defended the changes as vital to tackling climate change.

More here





REALITY CHECK: 'INDIA WON'T CUT CO2 EMISSIONS AT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVATION'

India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Namo Narain Meena said Thursday. 'India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,' Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day.

Though India has no commitment to reduce the global warming gases under the Kyoto Protocol, in recent climate change conferences many developed countries have said India needs to reduce the greenhouse burden.

Meena, however, said climate change was becoming a crucial issue, and needed immediate action. He added that consumptive lifestyle was putting severe pressure on biological resources. 'Each of us has to become a saviour of the environment.' 'Each of us can help curb the adverse impact of climate change,' he said adding that afforestation will go a long way in reducing the carbon level in the atmosphere as 'forest is the natural sink for CO2'.

S. Regupathy, who is also the minister of state for environment and forests, has said the World Environment Day provides an opportunity every year to reaffirm the commitments to work towards the sustainable conservation of environment.

Source






What price liberty

What price liberty? Apparently a lot more than most are willing to pay. Although Al Gore lost the presidential election of 2000, it is beginning to look more and more like he won thanks to the incessant drumbeat of one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated upon the American public. The hoax is man-made climate change, nee global warming, which is now threatening to destroy what has become the last bastion of freedom in the world.

According to the global warmists who vehementally contend that their unproven hypothesis is "proven science," there is no need for debate. They, after all, know best, and from their elitist position, they and their followers will dictate to the masses what they will drive, where they will live, what they can eat, where they can go, what they can do. Those who question that hypothesis are quickly, and summarily, denigrated, castigated as being the "willing tools" of the energy industry. Overlooked, of course, is the fact that many of the "climatologists" who have signed on to the hypothesis are, in fact, being funded by organizations that are simply using the global warming hoax as a means of further establishing their control of society.

Recently, some 31,000-plus scientists, 9,000 of whom hold doctorates in scientific fields, signed a petition noting "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A considerably small number, 2,500, was used to claim the "scientific consensus" by the U.N.'s famed climate change panel.

Even the global warmists, in the face of evidence they seek to ignore, that "natural variations" occur in the climate, are doing their best to hedge their bets, suggesting that global warming may stop for the next 10-12 years before resuming. In other words, when facts stand in the way of a predetermined conclusion, revise the conclusion to better escape the facts. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the highly-touted computer models that the global warmists so desperately cling to as their evidence are based on the faulty information entered into those computers. It is perhaps for that reason that the global warmists choose to ignore the historic evidence of the natural variations in climate that about 1200 years ago led to a thriving colony in Greenland and advanced mining operations along the Alps, enterprises that came to an end with what is now called the Medieval glaciation period.

There has finally emerged a major voice not only questioning, but condemning, the environmentalist attack on the free world. That voice belongs to Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. In a recent address to a U.N. committee, he rhetorically asked "Can we allow certain political movements that want something other than liberty to profit from a hysteria which has been born?"

Klaus understands the totalitarianism inherent in the enviromentalist agenda. It was the same totalitarianism under which he grew up, when Eastern Europe was under the control of the old Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. Klaus has also expressed a complete willingness to debate Gore. Gore, not surprisingly, has ignored that offer, and every other offer put forth by anyone who might credibly question his hypothesis.

The irony in the man-made global warming hoax is that the agenda behind the environmentalist movement is becoming increasingly more transparent, a transparency that is creating concern. The environmentalists who for years promoted higher prices -- and higher taxes -- on commodities like food and fuel are finding their agenda coming under closer scrutiny, and being rejected. In England, a growing revolt against the environmentalist tyranny is being played out by voters, who are rejecting the policies that are creating record energy and food prices, and are destroying the economy.

Still, thanks to Al Gore and the pseudo-science he has been able to promote because of his high profile, the totalitarianists have been able to use the drumbeat of environmentalism to mask their true motives, a further separation of government from the governed in an effort to establish their version of the kind of controlled society that existed for a dozen years in Germany, and for the better part of the 20th century in the Soviet Union. The pseudo-science the global warmists have espoused is no different that the pseudo-science of their predecessors, like Rachel Carson, who led the fight to ban DDT, which in turn has led to the deaths of millions, like Paul Ehrlich, who predicted mass starvation and other disasters by the end of the 20th century while actively supporting genocidal policies to prevent it.

That climate change exists is fact. That man has anything to do with it, or can stop it, is not. Although some of the global warmists may, indeed, have only the best of intentions, the very concept is little more than hubris, and the real impetus behind the movement has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with control. As Thomas Paine so succinctly put it, "The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes." And at the cost of liberty.

Source

***************************************

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************