Posts from — April 2009

Some people argue that we are morally obliged to reduce greenhouse gases aggressively because otherwise the world’s current development path would be unsustainable, and our descendants will be worse off than we are.

But will a warmer world be unsustainable, and leave our descendants worse off?

I have examined these claims out to the year 2200, using the IPCC’s own assumptions regarding future economic development and results generated by the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Note that both the IPCC and Stern are viewed quite favorably by proponents of drastic GHG reductions (see, e.g., here).

The first figure (see below) [Read more →]

ALBERT H. BOWERS III
NAVAL ARCHITECT & MARITIME CONSULTANT
P.O. BOX 177 – 11891 ACADEMY STREET
CHAUMONT, NY 13622
BERTNA@TWCNY.RR.COM

April 17, 2009

Senator Charles E. Schumer
Washington, D.C.

New York’s Thousand Islands are being Ruined

Dear Senator Schumer:

We need your help. We and many neighbors in surrounding communities have been concerned for the past several years about the arrival in northern New York of very aggressive developers seeking to build large industrial wind turbine facilities in our small communities. In neighboring Ontario, these large wind turbines have recently been installed on Wolfe Island, just across the river from Cape Vincent, New York. Below is a photo, taken previously, of the Tibbits Point lighthouse in Cape VIncent, marking the point where Lake Ontario flows into the St. Lawrence River:

Unfortunately, this beautiful scene will not be visible in this form again due to the construction of large wind turbines, visible in the following photo, [Read more →]

Headlines are meant to sell papers, but the above scream from atop Page 1 of today’s Houston Chronicle deserves critical comment. A fair and accurate (but less sexy) headline would have been: “EPA Declares Peril of Greenhouse Gases.” Just changing one word–from “recognizes” to “declares”–makes all the difference.

The Chronicle, particularly the editorial page, has been a bastion of climate alarmism rather than informed skepticism, or what a lot of us simply call climate realism. (Eric Berger, the “sci-guy” at the Chronicle, is more of a straight shooter on day-to-day global-warming reporting.)

The science is not settled in favor of climate alarmism. But this conclusion requires some background and explanation. [Read more →]

EPA’s soon-to-be-published endangerment finding definitely puts a swagger in the step of energy-rationing advocates in the Administration, Congress, and environmental groups. They believe it gives them the whip hand in Congress–a hammer with which to beat opponents into supporting cap-and-tax legislation. This is too clever by half.

Yes, as explained previously, the endangerment finding will trigger a regulatory cascade through multiple provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  A strict, letter-of-the-law application of those provisions to carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases would not only raise consumer energy prices. It could also freeze economic development, even shut down much of the economy. 

So, it’s not surprising that Team Obama and others think they can frighten opponents into supporting, for example, the Markey-Waxman cap-and-tax  bill, which specifically precludes CAA regulation of greenhouse gases under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, the New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting programs, the Title V operating permits program, and the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) program. 

But the cap-and-tax faction miscalculate, because the rest of us are not caught between a rock and a hard place. We have a third option: Just say no to cap-and-tax, and then let the Administration take ownership of the rising energy costs, job losses, and GDP impacts that Obama’s EPA inflicts on the country by regulating CO₂ under the CAA. [Read more →]

INTRODUCTION

My wife and I (like many other residents) chose a retirement home in Grey Highlands because it is one of the scenic treasures of southwestern Ontario, dominated by the Niagara Escarpment, Beaver Valley, Lake Eugenia, the Saugeen River, and rolling rural countryside, woodlands, and wetlands. Now, however, the residents of Grey Highlands and the many tourists and visitors it attracts (major drivers of the local economy) are threatened with the prospect that its landscape will be blighted by 400-foot, 35-story-high industrial wind turbines that cause documented health and environmental risks, dramatically lower property values and impact one’s quality of life.

The Green Energy Act (Bill 150), now before the Ontario Legislature,  is designed to expedite this process by taking planning responsibilities away from local municipalities like ours and remitting key decisions to subsequent ministerial regulations, leaving local residents no say in matters that will dramatically impact their lives and those of future generations. While we are obviously personally affected by this legislation, the following comments reflect a professional career studying economic regulation, including a year as Research Director of the Ontario Government’s Electricity Market Design Committee (1998). I have four major objections to the legislation. [Read more →]

In his recent New York Times op-ed, Thomas Friedman veritably gushes about the long-term commitment of Costa Rica to a clean environment and renewable energy. He is proud of the fact that renewables power 95 percent of the country’s economy. Such energy air-conditions resort hotels, charges golf carts, powers cable pulleys through the rain forest canopy, and bakes chips at the local Intel assembly plant.

Costa Rica’s energy mix is led by 75–80% hydropower, 12% geothermal, and 3%–5% oil (more specific statistics are here). The workhorse hydro is a mix of storage and run of river, with storage at about 50% of the 2,000 MW installed capacity.  In a dry year, the run-of-the-river plants will not produce much, or very reliably, which brings up the risk of such reliance.  In 2007 Costa Rica suffered power cuts as a result of drought and its lack of diversity in electricity generation. [Read more →]

A couple of weeks ago, the Cato Institute ran a major advertisement in several leading newspapers across the country, intending to counter some seemingly alarming statements about climate change that were coming from the Obama Administration—primarily statements concerning the urgency of action and the certitude of the science behind the perceived crisis.

The ad campaign quickly drew criticism in the blogosphere from folks who share President Obama’s sense of urgency and are also leaders in raising climate alarm. The loudest among these critics was perhaps Dr. Joe Romm, who runs the blog Climate Progress. Romm’s criticism was quite vehement, but it was also quite wrong. [Read more →]

Back on Feb. 15, George Will wrote an op-ed in the The Washington Post in which he claimed:

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

This set off a major controversy that continues to this day.  (For example, see here and here.)  As the master of hyperbole Joe Romm points out with delight, the Post actually contradicted Will by name in a news piece, which is quite unorthodox.

This blog does not tackle the huge issues of sea ice and whether we should be terrified or not.  (Dan Simmons alerts us to this response to the latest fretting.)  In truth, particular data points are rather irrelevant; someone who believes in the need for immediate curbs on carbon emissions could plausibly argue, “It is the long-term trends, not volatile blips, that matter.”

However, in this blog post I will give a qualified defense of Will, because (a) as he himself said in his original op-ed, it was the alarmists who were making much of momentary blips in the data–specifically, the drastic collapse in sea ice in the 3rd quarter of 2008. And I also want to partially defend Will because (b) his erroneous statement about the long-term change in sea ice is largely due to a statistical quirk that no other commentator has noticed (to my knowledge). [Read more →]

In one of my first posts for MasterResource, I discussed a (then) just-published paper in Science magazine by David Battisti and Rosamond Naylor that argued that global warming was fast leading us into agricultural failure and a global food crisis.

I pointed out that this was a naïve analysis that gave short-shrift to our ability to adapt to changing climate conditions. Through technological improvement of farming practices and the development of new crop varieties, farmers have not only been able to keep up with a changing climate, but have also managed to produce ever-greater crop yields. [Read more →]

As many of us have argued for some time, simple economic theory suggests that the government’s push to create “green jobs” will ultimately kill more jobs on net. While the theoretical argument is fully compelling, however, it’s nice to have hard data to show people that this particular theory plays out in reality.

That’s why this study, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain should be kept handy (the report is in English).

After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, the researchers concluded: [Read more →]