|
Newsletter (November 13, 2009)
In this issue
Featured- Environmental Progress Is Not Automatic
- Forecasting the Future
- Climate Change and Malaria in Africa
Debate- Letter to Clergymen on Misrepresenting Laymen
- Perceptible Shift to Politics
- Waxman-Markey's Non-Cap-and-Trade Provisions
Science- The Sun Defines the Climate
- State of the Climate: National Overview, October 2009
Economics- McClintock on 2009 HR 3585 Solar Technology Roadmap Act
- Renewable Energy: The Myth of Germany's 'Grün Energie'
Meet the Critics: Mel Goldstein & Ronnie Walter Cunningham
Briefly Noted
Featuredby E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
November 10, 2009
One of the most important lessons of environmental economics is the "environmental transition," illustrated here in Indur Goklany's outstanding book The Improving State of the World and discussed in my monograph What Is the Most Important Environmental Task Facing American Christians Today?
.jpg)
p(P) = period of perception; p(T) = period of transition; “Not-in-my-backyard” region (environmental impact enters this region if benefits far exceed costs to beneficiaries); cost-benefit region (where benefits and costs have to be more carefully balanced). (Goklany, The Improving State of the World, p. 105)
The gist of the concept is that as economies move from subsistence agriculture to early industrialization, pollution tends to rise, but the benefits of the polluting activities in terms of increased wealth and therefore also health and longevity outweigh the harms from the pollution. At various points along the upward wealth slope, societies begin investing in pollution emission reductions, eventually causing emissions of each pollution to peak and decline. Eventually, particularly as economies move from primarily industrial to primarily service-and-technology oriented, pollution emissions and ambient concentrations fall to a level at or below where they were before economic development began.
It is crucial, however, to remember that this transition doesn't happen automatically, or at the same rate in all societies. The transition depends not only on a society's level of wealth but also on other factors, associated primarily with good governance: the institutions of private property (including not only ownership but also the right to buy and sell), the rule of law, a just and accessible court system capable of redressing torts, governmental transparency, and governmental accountability--the institutions associated with constitutional democracies, but not, typically, with communist and other absolutist regimes.
If there ever were a case of a country that seems to be growing wealthier without following the environmental transition, it may be China. There, a government lacking in transparency and accountability, lack of adequate tort laws and of a court system to enforce them, and lack of adequate recognition and protection of private property, coupled with a low valuation of human beings by the government, has led to a combination of rapid economic growth and extraordinary environmental devastation, captured by award-winning photographer Lu Guang in a photographic study of pollution in China. Photos like these two from Guang's study makes a powerful reminder that those who believe in good creation stewardship must believe also in the institutions that make it possible.
.jpg)
Jiangsu province Changshu City Fluorine Chemical industry land sewage treatment plant was responsible for collection and processing of the industrial sewage. However they did not, the sewage pipe was extended 1500 meters under the Yangtze River and releasing the sewage there. 2009 June 11
.jpg)
In Inner Mongolia there were 2 “black dragons” from the Lasengmiao Power Plant covering the nearby villages. July 26, 2005
Yet even these images should not cause despair. Recovery from such pollution is possible. Pittsburgh, PA, offered a picture similar to the on just above in 1906:
Although air pollution still exists in Pittsburgh a hundred years later, it is a far cry from what it once was:
A free and just society can reduce pollution and many other problems. That is why the Cornwall Alliance promotes not only environmental stewardship but also the social institutions that make it possible.Back to top by Vincent R. Gray
Founder, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition; Author, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'
November 10, 2009
"Forecasting is difficult: particularly about the future" This piece of wisdom . . . does not apply to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, since they do not make "forecasts" at all, only "projections". As they make clear, "projections" are dependent on the correctness of the assumptions made by the computer models and the futures scenarios from which they are made.
This has not always been so. In the first IPCC Report (1990). on the first page of the "Executive Summary" there was nearly a whole page headed " Based on current model results, we predict" with no less than ten actual "predictions".They used the phrase "models predict" several times throughout, but they did, at least admit that there were "uncertainties".
Chapter 4 was entitled "Validation of Climate Models". Paragraph 4,12 "Methods and Problems of Model Validation" showed that such validation is quite a problem, and it seemed to show that, so far, no model has been truly validated. Chapter 8 "Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations" had the answer when it said (paragraph 8.4) "the fact that we have not yet detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question: when is this likely to occur"
The next Report (1995) had, in its first draft, another Chapter 4 "Validation of Climate Models". I commented (with, perhaps, others), that since no model had ever been validated, according to their own opinions, the title was inappropriate. So in the next draft they changed the word "validation" to "evaluation" no less that fifty times, and that report and all subsequent ones have not used the terms "predict", "forecast", or "validate". Also there has been no further discussion on how validation might be made. This is true of all of the four parts of the Fourth Report. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Bjorn Lomborg
Director, Copenhagen Consensus; Associate Professor, University of Aarhus, Denmark; Author, Lomborg.com; Author, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2009
When he first got sick, Samson Banda didn't realize he had malaria. Only after he came down with a serious fever did he end up at a clinic in the Bauleni slum compound in Lusaka, Zambia. The clinic has just a few nurses and staff with basic medical skills. Locals can wait for an entire day to be seen.
Unchecked malaria is serious. Nine out of 10 of the world's annual one million malaria-caused deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The disease—transmitted via mosquitoes—can cause low blood sugar, an enlarged spleen and liver, severe headaches, a shortage of oxygen to the brain, and renal failure. It can lead to coma and death. Twenty-seven year-old Samson was ill for six months before he started to recover.
Bauleni is an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes during the rainy season between November and April. The slum lacks any sanitation or sewer supply, so locals dig pit latrines. The waste overflows. Most adults have some long-term infection that tends to recur.
"Our conditions are pathetic—both the health clinics and the sanitation in this area," Mr. Samson told a Copenhagen Consensus Center researcher.
Ask what he wants to see foreign donors' money spent on, and he is quick to answer: better health care. When he is asked about global warming, Mr. Samson responds: "I have heard about it, but I don't even know how it would affect me. If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?" . . .
Read the rest.Back to top DebateLetter from R.C.E. Wyndham to Archbishop Vincent Nichols
November, 2009
Last Friday the airwaves hummed to the news that you, together with your counterparts from other “faith communities” in the country, had collectively lobbied Ed Miliband MP in connection with the forthcoming conference in Copenhagen dedicated to so-called climate change. The BBC for one reported that you had declared it to be “a moral issue”. I agree. So much so, in fact, that I venture to proffer the suggestion that the ethical underpinning of the cause to which you have now committed the weight of your office warrants the closest possible scrutiny.
But where to begin? Well, as the beauteous and benign white Witch of the North said to Dorothy, “It’s usually best to start at the beginning”. Good advice! So then, what are we being asked to believe by the proselytisers of anthropogenic global warming, curiously morphed to “climate change”- any idea why? No? Just ask and I’ll deliver chapter and verse from none other than the august Tyndall Centre no less (en passant, Working Paper No. 58). But, anyway, in the sort of transcendental terminology favoured by you and others of a theocratic persuasion, we are being asked to accept that, within the atmosphere, a trace carbon compound, but one which happens also to have been ordained by God to be the fundamental building block of life itself, nevertheless contains within it the seeds of Armageddon,. And that by virtue only of what is no more than a minute increase in its overall concentration - how about glaciations (please note not runaway greenhouse effects) in the geological record, during which CO2 concentrations were more than ten times those of today? Does that pass the probability test, shall we call it? Hardly! Or - in the alternative, is the very notion no better than just stark lunacy? Sane persons might well be inclined to think so. Or, in a third alternative, is it just a vast farrago of lies driven by avarice, the lust for power, the lure of fiscal opportunism and the seduction of imposing social control down to the minutest level of detail? Yes, indeed, THAT overall is a moral issue of some magnitude! . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Anthony J. Sadar and Stanley J. Penkala
Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Teacher (Sadar); Chemical Engineer; President, Air Science Consultants (Penkala)
Washington Times, October 30, 2009
The change from pure science to political science has invaded college atmospheric science classes.
A few months ago one of us and another co-author lamented the intrusion of politics into the science debate concerning climate change (see "Global-warming politics," The Washington Times, April 22). Now, much of the same politically motivated "science" is appearing in the newest editions of university textbooks.
Hopefully, the students exposed to these instances of revisionist history will have knowledgeable professors and the personal critical evaluation skills to see through the deception. Sadly, though, many in academia accept textbook information as gospel truth, and future generations of students will be indoctrinated through exposure to "fancy," rather than fact. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Institute for Energy Research
2009
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill. Generally, Waxman-Markey bill is thought of as a cap-and-trade bill, but it is far more than that. Of the bill’s 1,428 pages, merely half are dedicated to cap-and-trade. The rest of the bill is packed with regulations that would completely alter the United States’ economy. Even without cap-and-trade, Waxman-Markey is the most repressive package of new taxes, wealth transfers and obstacles to economic activity that a Congress has ever assembled.
Notable Provisions in Waxman-Markey:
- Mandate that utilities provide 20 percent of electricity from qualified renewables by 2020, up from about 2.8 percent today1 (Sec. 101): . . .
- Establish a new $1 billion annual tax on electricity from coal and natural gas-fired power plants (Sec. 114): . . .
- Provide assistance to the many workers who will lose their jobs as a result of the bill’s economically destructive provisions (Sec. 421–424).
- Micromanage energy efficiency standards for lighting and appliances (Sec. 211–212), . . .
- Establish a new $30 billion revolving loan fund to subsidize wind turbines, solar energy, fuel cells, batteries, biomass equipment and other energy sources (Sec. 246).
- Create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) with $7.5 billion in Treasury “Green Bonds” (Sec. 182): . . .
- Require utilities to develop large scale plans for electric vehicles (Sec. 121) and increase the ceiling on loans to auto manufactures to build electric cars (Sec. 125). The bill also allows the Secretary of Transportation to require automobile manufactures to produce flex-fuel vehicles (Sec. 127), and even authorizes $350 million for a “Cash for Clunkers” program for electric motors (Sec. 245).
- Continue to allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases using criteria other than global climate change (Sec. 112). . . .
- Stall EPA’s efforts to determine the complete lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol (Sec. 551). . . .
- Replace local and state building codes with a federal building code (Sec. 201). . . .
- Create a federal grant program to help electric utilities plant trees (Sec. 205).
- Create an independent consumer advocacy office within FERC that is run by a political appointee and will not answer to the Commissioners (Sec. 198). . . .
- Establish a “National Climate Adaptation Program,” which empowers federal zoning of land and the oceans under the guise of climate change (Sec. 471–482).
- Require the President to impose tariffs on imports from counties that do not reduce their emissions by 2020 (Sec. 401).
Read the rest.
Related item:
The Other Half of Waxman-Markey: An Examination of the Non-Cap-and-Trade Provisions
by Robert J. Michaels
Professor of Economics, California State University; Senior Fellow, Institute for Energy Research
2009Back to top Scienceby Habibullo Abdussamatov
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory; Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
November, 2008
Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
Life on earth completely depends on solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of solar energy received per second over one square meter above the atmosphere at the distance of the Earth from the Sun (149 597 892 km), was named the solar constant.
Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the total solar irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years. . . .
Read the rest (PDF).Back to top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
October, 2009
- The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
- For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
- Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
- Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October).
- The three-month period (August-October) was the coolest on record for three states: Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Five other states had top five cool periods: Missouri (2nd), Iowa (3rd), Arkansas (5th), Illinois (5th) and South Dakota (5th). Every climate division in Kansas (nine) and Nebraska (eight) recorded a record cool such period.
- For the year-to-date (January - October) period, the contiguous U.S. temperature ranked 43rd warmest. No state had a top or bottom ten temperature value for this period.
Read the rest.Back to top Economicsby Congressman Tom McClintock
Representative of California
Speech delivered to House Chamber, October 22, 2009
. . . Billions of dollars were poured into research and development for solar technology, and an entire solar industry solely supported by massive subsidies arose to grab those dollars.
And what was the result of all of this plunder of taxpayers and ratepayers? More than 30 years after that promise was made in 1978, solar power accounts for just one percent of electricity generation. That’s not for lack of subsidies – it’s because despite billions of dollars of subsidies, the technology remains immensely inefficient and expensive. . . .
In a day, a solid acre of state-of-the-art solar panels can produce 2.2 megawatt hours of electricity, assuming an average of 5 hours of peak sunlight. 2.2 megawatt hours per day. Compare that to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that produces 49,000 megawatt hours of electricity each day.
In order to duplicate that single nuclear power plant, it would require 22,000 acres of solid solar panels – or 34 square miles. By comparison, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant sits on one square mile.
So this technology, after 170 years and countless billions of dollars of research and development, is roughly 17 times more expensive than nuclear power and consumes 32 times the land area of a comparable nuclear facility. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Patrick Tuohey
Writer, Big Government
October 19, 2009
On May 27, President Obama remarked to an audience gathered at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada that Americans, “pioneered solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in generating it, even though they get less sun than we do. They certainly get less sun than Nevada.” Today, Vice President Biden and a handful of Cabinet secretaries releases the Recovery through Retrofit report that will extol the virtues of green jobs and energy savings to be had if only the government had its way.
Observers of national policy may want to look at other countries’ experiences to see how they have fared with efforts to improve environmental policies. Previous research on green jobs policies in Spain showed that costs were high and benefits short-lived. But what of the President’s example of Germany?
The Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), an independent German economic policy think tank founded in 1926, has released its report on the matter entitled, “Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience.” To readers hoping for a government solution to energy problems, page 4 delivers a devastating indictment of the German model:
German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. Read the rest.Back to top Meet the CriticsHave you ever been at a loss for words when challenged by the alarmist's claim of scientific "consensus," or that dissenting scientists are unqualified? Not only does consensus prove nothing, but the very idea of "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic manmade climate change is simply unfounded. A 2008 Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Report documents dissension around the world:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Two notable critics are:
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D.
Famous Connecticut weatherman "Dr. Mel" is his state's news Channel 8 chief meteorologist and, teaching at Western Connecticut State University, created their Weather Center and established their bachelor's meteorology program. The author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Weather and Dr. Mel's Connecticut Climate Book, Goldstein "become[s] skeptical when atmospheric models are used to project conditions 100 or 200 years from now." He explains, "When you are in the trenches and forecasting each and everyday, you begin to realize the inadequacies of our computer models."
Ronnie Walter Cunningham
Retired physicist Walter Cunningham was an Apollo 7 astronaut who won the Exceptional Distinguished Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings. A member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society, Cunnigham wrote, in his article In Science, Ignorance Is Not Bliss, "NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing that water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, works to offset the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). This information, contrary to the assumption used in all the warming models, is ignored by global warming alarmists. . . . Saying the Earth is warming is to state the obvious. Since the end of the ice age, the Earth’s temperature has increased approximately 16 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet. That is certain and measurable evidence of warming, but it is not evidence of AGW—human-caused warming."Back to top Briefly NotedThe Non-Tragedy of the Commmons
Europe's Disastrous Climate Policy: A Lesson for Congress
The Expensive Failure of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
