Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Carbon trading won’t work
Michael K. Dorsey, LA TImes
Economists, some environmentalists and a growing gaggle of politicians are pushing a grand strategy that a market mechanism – known as “carbon cap and trade” – can rescue us fastest from a climate catastrophe. But early evidence suggests that such a scheme may be a Faustian bargain.
…Carbon trading on a global scale, however, amounts to an untested economic experiment. The most ambitious carbon-trading experiment to date began in the European Union in 2003. About 9,400 large factories and power stations in 21 member states were targeted, and the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme was established to trade pollution rights.
In January 2005, the EU governments distributed carbon credits – permits to pollute – to the companies and power plants. The credits were based in large part on what the firms estimated their annual carbon dioxide emissions would be. Because these credits were given out, not auctioned off, the firms did not pay for their pollution. Yet they stood to make money by selling them.
The EU’s official accounting of the companies’ emissions, released in April 2006, revealed that the companies’ and power plants’ actual emissions came in below estimates. Some said the firms had inflated their earlier emissions estimates, and thus all had credits to sell. This situation produced a surplus.
Once it was known that the number of available permits exceeded demand, prices slumped. Indeed, fear that there are too many permits for sale (combined with concerns about the EU’s regulatory shortcomings) have effectively collapsed the market. A March 2007 report from Deutsche Bank Research noted that “many EU nations are still a long way from delivering on their Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
Researchers at Open Europe, an economics think tank in Britain, recently issued a report on the experiment. They concluded that the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme represents “botched central planning rather than a real market.” As a result, the report said, carbon trading has not resulted in an overall decline of the EU’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Worse, the early evidence suggested that the trading scheme financially rewarded companies – mainly petroleum, natural gas and electricity generators – that disproportionately emit carbon dioxide.
Michael K. Dorsey, assistant professor on Dartmouth College’s faculty of science, teaches in the environmental studies program.
(1 April 2007)
Re-posted at Znet.
WTTC launches debate on climate change with global ad campaign
Staff, Travel Daily News
The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) launches an international campaign to call to dialogue the issues on climate change. The campaign will run full pages in authoritative publications including The Daily Telegraph, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and travel trade media around the world.
An online forum has been created to encourage open dialogue on the issues that need to be addressed on climate change. The forum also draws input concerning environmental good practice, working hand in hand with sustainable communities, nations and business.
Industry leaders, experts, governments and other stakeholders are invited to join the dialogue and to share their views by visiting www.globaltraveltourism.com/environment. ..
WTTC President Jean-Claude Baumgarten said, “The risk of an energy crisis is forcing a re-think on consumption levels, efficiency, and alternatives. Know-how is being developed and already Travel & Tourism leaders are working on making a real difference, not only on the carbon footprint of their activities, but also the overall impact of Travel & Tourism on our natural environment. Rather than demonizing any industry or activity, the task now for individuals, corporations, communities and governments, is to cut through misconceptions and to work on realizing practical solutions for a sustainable future.”
(3 Apr 2007)
Whacked with the environment stick
Leon Gettler, The Age
THE Australian Stock Exchange corporate governance council has announced its revised corporate governance principles will take effect from January.
Not only is that late, but whatever it decides on sustainability may well be superseded by legal developments.
The ASX had asked whether companies should be more open in reporting on sustainability. Like the rest of Australian business, the ASX is about to discover that question is starting to look about as effective as the United Nations.
Businesses now face a flurry of legislation on climate change, and have to make disclosures that won’t be voluntary. It will be time-consuming and costly. Law-makers are deeming that necessary. ..
(4 Apr 2007)
Mr Gettler makes a good point well. The industry associations that have been so good at stalling change now court irrelevance or worse by continuing to dawdle – politicians are marching to a new drummer.-LJ
Clean Air Is For Liberals
Jon Carroll, SF Chronicle
One of the stranger things to happen in recent political discourse — and this is a crowded field — is the morphing of global warming into a left-wing plot, a conspiracy by godless scientists to … well, it’s not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.
I have a pretty good idea where that meme started. If you believe that global warming is man-made, then you believe that greenhouse gases are a bad thing. If you believe they’re a bad thing, you believe they should be reduced. And reducing greenhouse gases would mean using less petroleum, in all its myriad forms. And since the current administration is dedicated to the protection of petroleum companies, it is only natural that it would try to convince its base that somehow global warming is being promoted by the same people who approve of gay marriage, abortion and secular schools.
The idea that global warming is a liberal plot is a lunatic notion, but it’s surprising how closely it maps with public opinion. It’s an extremely successful con job, and it’s bought the oil companies at least a decade of profits and indolence.
…So the president, who is nothing if not consistent, is trying to stick it to environmentalists again. Last year, he nominated three people for top-level jobs at posts that affect the environment. All three nominations were blocked, and thank you, Barbara Boxer. But now the president is thinking of making recess appointments of the same three people. He thinks it’s a game of chicken. He thinks he has to win.
Is politics the art of compromise? Not anymore. Politics is the art of slandering your enemies and rewarding your campaign contributors.
Who are these winners? Fortunately, Judy Pasternak of the Los Angeles Times has done the research so you don’t have to. First there’s William Wehrum, nominated as head of the air quality division of the EPA — which is the post he currently holds, thanks to a temporary promotion. Wehrum is a lawyer who formerly represented the chemical, utility and auto industries.
His specialty is mercury and lead emissions. He thinks the EPA standards are far too strict. He has taken steps to loosen the rules because, really, how much harm can microscopic amounts of natural substances do? (Scientists say: plenty, but you know scientists. They’re the ones behind the global warming hoax.) So Bush wants a guy in charge of clean air who is in fact in favor of dirty air.
(4 April 2007)
The LA Times article cited by Jon Carroll is: Bush again pushes 3 nominees seen as pro-industry.
Truth swindled in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Danny Chivers, A Daisy Through Concrete
So many people have now asked me about that wretched “Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary that was on Channel 4 the other week that I’ve decided to write this response, to hopefully clear it all up once and for all.
I should say first that if you’ve never heard of the programme, didn’t see it, or aren’t bothered about it in the least – hooray! The fewer people that were exposed to this bunkum, the better. Feel free to stop reading this rant and go back to your happy, Durkin-free life (Martin Durkin is the name of the director of this – I hesitate to use the word – “documentary”). If, however, you did see it, and it annoyed, confused or disturbed you, or people you know keep asking you awkward questions about it, or even if it confirmed your own beliefs about climate change being a huge conspiracy by evil power-crazed lefty greenies, then hopefully this article may be of help to you.
The problem with this sort of TV programme is that if you’re not familiar with the details of the science behind climate change, a lot of the claims it makes can sound quite convincing, especially when they’re gravely pronounced by a bunch of people with scientific-sounding titles and accompanied by lots of dramatic music and images. Well, as someone who has spent a lot of time studying climate change science and policy I can cheerfully state that the entire programme is a mish-mash of discredited theories, faulty data, fringe opinions presented as facts, some reputable science being horribly misrepresented, and some moderately bonkers conspiracy theories. For those who are particularly interested, I’ve written a summary (below) of what’s wrong with each of the programme’s main claims, along with some links to places with more detailed dissections of these issues.
(24 March 2007)
