“Binding emissions targets for the developing nations are out of the question.”
– Eileen Claussen, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, March 2009
As I demonstrated in my analyses last week (here and here), the impact on global temperatures of U.S. actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Waxman-Markey climate bill (which called for a whopping 83% reduction by 2050) was close to nil. Or more precisely, about 0.05°C (0.09°F) by the year 2050, expanding to maybe 0.1°C–0.2°C by the end of the century, depending on, among other things, which future emissions course is assumed as the baseline.
And as the negotiations continue into the specific details of the proposed legislation, the emission reduction schedule has begun to slip—and so too does the potential climate impact.
So what is the temperature impact of a dirty Waxman-Markey bill versus the “clean” bill’s 0.05°C/0.09°F?…
Continue ReadingThis has been the busiest period in the short life of MasterResource (we are less than five months old). Our viewership this week has exceeded ten thousand, and cross posts on mega-blogs across the political spectrum have introduced us to new audiences. MasterResource, an energy scholars’ blog (but one that is accessible to the general reader), is on the map!
Two issues have driven our recent traffic. One is the temperature analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill by environmental scientist Chip Knappenberger. His straightforward analysis (but don’t ask me to use the MAGICC model!) reflects Chip’s usual careful scholarship. I expect that it will not need to be substantially revised (no complaints so far at RealClimate). But if errors are found, Chip will be the first to thank the reviewer and make the changes.…
Continue Reading[Editor note: For an in-depth look at Enron’s political capitalism model applied to the climate-change debate, see Bradley’s Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy (M & M Scrivener Press, 2009)]
On four occasions, Joseph Romm at Climate Progress (Center for American Progress) has deployed an argument ad hominem against me, using my prior employment at Enron and my direct association with Ken Lay (see here, here, here, and here). My response to Romm earlier this week has received thousands of views and several blog links, including here.
The irony here is two-fold. First, Romm ignores the fact that I was an employee who personally challenged the company’s rent-seeking via climate alarmism. Secondly, and more ironic still, Enron was his darling company. Specifically, he was an unpaid consultant and collaborator with Enron Energy Services (EES), whose contracts were money losers, reflecting of paucity of economic energy savings.…
Continue Reading