Saving Face At MIT

In reading the following press release from MIT you will see they still use the term "greenhouse gas" as something evil, caused by man's activities and something we must limit at all costs because we know, or more accurately, they assume it causes global warming and "climate change". They know (or they should) that this is a fallacy shown by observation and laid bare by the embarrassing exposure of the man-caused global warming hoax in the on-going ClimateGate fiasco. I won't even mention Al Gore's continuing hi-jinks.

However, MIT must save face in an effort to retain some degree of scientific integrity and credibility. They must still fight the never-ending battle for funding, so to be crude, they must "suck up". Although they admit the U.S. (and of course the world) will be dependent upon fossil fuels at least through the middle of this century because alternatives (e.g. wind, solar and geothermal can not suffice) they claim natural gas can be used to power our economy and replace that "dirty" coal. This they claim will reduce "greenhouse gases". Hogwash!

Burning natural gas (methane) produces nearly as much CO2 as coal or gasoline and oil. The net effect would be minimal. They also forget to mention that most natural gas is a "fossil fuel", found and produced in nearly the exact same way as is crude oil. This esteemed panel of "experts" at MIT should know better, and I'm sure they do, but they're playing the politically correct game, walking the middle of the road, trying to pacify the environmentalists and their idealistic dreams of a "carbon-free" world, while at the same time trying to maintain some degree of scientific and economic realism and integrity. They end up just looking like fools.
Peter

MITEI-led study offers comprehensive look at the future of natural gas

Photo - Graphic: Christine Daniloff

Researchers find significant potential for gas to displace coal, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions as a transition to a low-carbon future.

June 25, 2010

Natural gas will play a leading role in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over the next several decades, largely by replacing older, inefficient coal plants with highly efficient combined-cycle gas generation. That’s the conclusion reached by a comprehensive study of the future of natural gas conducted by an MIT study group comprised of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers, and graduate students. The findings, summarized in an 83-page report, were presented to lawmakers and senior administration officials this week in Washington.

The two-year study, managed by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), examined the scale of U.S. natural gas reserves and the potential of this fuel to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the work of the multidisciplinary team, with advice from a board of 16 leaders from industry, government and environmental groups, the report examines the future of natural gas through 2050 from the perspectives of technology, economics, politics, national security and the environment.

The report includes a set of specific proposals for legislative and regulatory policies, as well as recommendations for actions that the energy industry can pursue on its own, to maximize the fuel’s impact on mitigating greenhouse gas. The study also examined ways to control the environmental impacts that could result from a significant expansion in the production and use of natural gas — especially in electric power production.

“Much has been said about natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future, with little underlying analysis to back up this contention. The analysis in this study provides the confirmation — natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future,” said MITEI Director Ernest J. Moniz in introducing the report.

Read the full report

Read a press release about the report

Barbara Boxer Out-Of-Touch With Reality

If Barbara Boxer is out of touch with reality then the same must be said for any members of Congress who vote for any kind of bill aimed at "slowing global warming". Face it people, any such bill is simply another tax on the American people, another attempt to establish greater government control over our lives. If global warming was actually occurring (it isn't), if man-caused global warming was real (it isn't), if there was anything we could do to stop climate change (there isn't), and if carbon dioxide emissions were to blame for anything, (they aren't), then maybe Ms. Boxer would make some sense. However, in light of all the scientific observations and economic common sense, Ms. Boxer is as wrong as anyone can be.
Peter

CNSNews.com

Sen. Barbara Boxer Says Bill Limiting Greenhouse Gases May Pass Soon
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press (source)

United Nations (AP) - The chairman of the U.S. Senate's environment committee said Monday that it's possible Congress will pass a bill aimed at slowing global warming before international talks on a deal to limit climate change in Copenhagen in December.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who is co-sponsoring the bill, said she is pushing for approval of the legislation with specific targets to limit greenhouse gases, adding that the Obama administration "is very strong on this." (Oh really Barbara? Then they are just as delusional as you, and John Kerry of course.)

She said congressional approval of the bill is possible before nations meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, in early December to try to agree on a new global climate treaty. But she said if the bill isn't approved by then it doesn't mean the U.S. isn't making progress in tackling global warming.

Boxer and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are co-sponsoring the 800-page Senate bill which calls for a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions beginning in three years, to be tightened annually so that emissions would be 20 percent lower in 2020 than they were in 2005. It would require emissions to be 83 percent lower by 2050.

The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate-change bill in June which would require the same long-term cuts, but the Senate bill has bigger early targets, something many in U.S. industry oppose.

"I believe we will get this bill out of my committee soon," Boxer told reporters after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. "Certainly before Copenhagen, and we're hoping maybe to even have it on the floor (of the Senate)."

Ban has made a new climate treaty his top priority, calling a summit on climate change on Sept. 22 to spur political support. It was attended by 101 world leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama.

Many U.N. officials have said they would like to see a U.S. climate change bill passed and signed by the president before Copenhagen.

"I said it is possible," Boxer replied when asked about the chances.

"I do believe it would be the best thing if we could pass our legislation, and I'm pushing for it. But I would not say that absent that, American is not making progress," she said. "We're making huge progress."

Boxer said targets "are very important" and she believes the inventors and entrepreneurs of the world will come up with new green technologies, "so I think it won't be that hard to meet these targets." (Obviously Ms. Boxer is not in tune with the energy industry, as exemplified and articulated by the CEO of Shell here: http://www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/speeches/2009/voser_woodrow_wilson_08102009.html

Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general's Climate Change Support Team, told a news conference Monday that recently concluded negotiations in Bangkok on the new treaty made "much needed progress" on some issues.

"Developing countries clearly demonstrated they're moving forward in a spirit of pragmatic cooperation," he said.

But Pasztor said little progress was made on "core political issues" including agreement on mid-term targets for industrialized countries to reduce emissions, and deciding who will pay for measures that developing countries need to take to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the effects of climate change.

He urged all countries to adapt "a spirit of flexibility" at the final negotiating session in Barcelona, Spain, from Nov. 2-6.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Obama Calls For Action On Global Warming: Is He Crazy?

Here it is a mere two weeks after the Election and Obama is already talking nonsense about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. He is proposing what is essentially an increase in taxes (we all know any increased cost of producing energy, i.e. carbon credits, or cap and trade) will be passed on to the consumer. This will not just harm those producing electricity from the burning of coal, it will cost everyone, substantially. He is then proposing to take that money, tax-payer's money, and use it to fund the development of "alternative" forms of energy.

It is clear that Obama has fallen for the myth of man-caused global warming, hook, line, and sinker. This does not bode well for the future of Obama's reign in office.
Peter

Obama seeks immediate action to curb emissions
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2008

(11-18) 17:46 PST LOS ANGELES -- In his first speech on global warming since winning the election, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday to set stringent limits on greenhouse gases, saying the need is too urgent for delay.
Many observers had expected Obama to avoid tackling such a complex, contentious issue early in his administration. But in videotaped comments to the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, he called for immediate action.

"Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all," Obama said. "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious."

He repeated his campaign promise to create a system that limits carbon dioxide emissions and forces companies to pay for the right to emit the gas. Using the money collected from that system, Obama plans to invest $15 billion each year in alternative energy. That investment - in solar, wind and nuclear power, as well as advanced coal technology - will create jobs at a time of economic turmoil, he said.

"It will ... help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating 5 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," Obama said.
Many people listening to Obama's speech Tuesday had waited years to hear it.
Schwarzenegger 'very happy'

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger convened the Global Climate Summit along with the governors of Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin - states that have been developing their own global warming policies rather than waiting for federal action. Schwarzenegger clashed repeatedly with the Bush administration on climate policy and complained that the White House was dragging its feet on a looming crisis. He told the conference Tuesday that he welcomed a new approach from Washington and will work with Obama.

"Of course I am very, very happy," Schwarzenegger said. "This is so important for our country, because we have been the biggest polluters in the world, and it is about time that we as a country recognize that and that we work together with other nations in order to fight global warming."

Obama touted the idea of companies paying to emit greenhouse gases, a system known as "cap and trade," during the campaign. But many people had doubted he would make it an early priority as president.

Under such a system, the government would set an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions and let companies buy and sell the right to emit specific amounts. The limit would decline over time.

Such systems are complicated to create. They're also controversial. Critics say they amount to a tax on energy use that would hurt businesses and consumers at a time when the economy is floundering.

But one business group threw its support behind Obama on Tuesday.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which includes San Francisco's Pacific Gas and Electric Co. as well as several environmental organizations, started calling for government action on global warming two years ago. The group wants a cap and trade system as soon as possible, even though many of its members - such as oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips - emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.

"We stand united behind President-elect Obama's statement earlier today," said James Rogers, chief executive officer of Duke Energy, one of America's largest electric utilities. "Delaying this further doesn't make sense. And using the economy as an excuse is wrong. ... We can solve our economic and environmental crises simultaneously."

Paying for emitting carbons
A cap and trade system forces companies to pay for emitting greenhouse gases, effectively putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, alternative energy technologies should become more cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

"At its core, it's very simple - we need a price on carbon," said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy, another Climate Action Partnership member. "We own coal-fired power plants. That's what we do for a living. We've been developing low- or no-carbon technologies as we look to the future. ... But again, we need a price on carbon, because it's not cheap."

Obama's four-minute, videotaped speech largely repeated elements of his energy plan from the campaign trail, saying the nation must cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

He repeatedly linked the fight against global warming to reviving the economy, saying the investment in alternative energy would put Americans to work.

Nuclear power, 'clean coal'
Obama also made a point of backing technologies that many environmentalists despise - nuclear power and "clean coal," which involves trapping and storing underground the emissions from coal-burning power plants.

Obama told participants at the governors' climate conference that he would work with any country, state or business that wanted to fight climate change. Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Mexico, India, Indonesia and the United Kingdom all sent representatives to the two-day conference.

"I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House," he said. "Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that is willing to join the cause of combatting climate change will have an ally in the United States of America."

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/MNBE146VPK.DTL

Global Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

We are led to believe that global warming is caused by the "greenhouse" effect of carbon dioxide, CO2. We are led to believe this is exacerbated by man's addition of more CO2 by burning "fossil fuels". Supposedly, this is caused by the "radiative forcing" of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. For information on "radiative forcing" see here.

One of the major problems with this idea of carbon dioxide emissions being responsible for the "catastrophic" increase in global warming and subsequent "climate change", is that atmospheric CO2 has never acted this way in the entire past history of the Earth. Have the basic laws of chemistry and physics changed suddenly? Well, it seems they have in the minds of our computer climate modelers and IPCC propagandists.
Peter




Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
June 21, 2005

source:



One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.



Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?



Adjacent graphic 'Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time' from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?
************************************************************
Similarities with our Present World
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!



Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.



The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
*******************************************************************
Our Future Written in Stone
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.



Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.



It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.
What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical power plants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.



Understanding Earth's geologic and climate past is important for understanding why our present Earth is the way it is, and what Earth may look like in the future. The geologic information locked up in the rocks and coal seams of the Carboniferous Period are like a history book waiting to be opened. What we know so far, is merely an introduction. It falls on the next generation of geologists, climatologists, biologists, and curious others to continue the exploration and discovery of Earth's dynamic history-- a fascinating and surprising tale, written in stone.

Cap-and Trade System To Control Greenhouse Gases A (Very) Bad Idea

A well-known economist, (Arthur Laffer) says a cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions would harm the U.S. economy. Not only would the economy suffer, but I am sure any such efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions would have no effect on global warming or climate change. Read what Mr. Laffer has to say about the economics of the plan.
Peter

The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations
Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden
September 2007

The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations
A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and, consequently, are an inappropriate policy response to current concerns about global warming. Our analysis of cap-and-trade’s economic impacts reveals the following impacts:

• In economic terminology, cap-and-trade operates is a “quantity constraint” as the scheme establishes (or constrains) the GHGs that can be produced. As a quantity constraint, cap-and-trade regulations inherently create more price volatility in the GHG allowance market, as has already been observed in Europe. The Congressional Budget Office has also raised the price volatility issue, concluding that cap-and-trade regulations are not sound policies for addressing global warming.

• Cap-and-trade regulations would likely impose a large cost on the U.S. economy. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that overall economic growth could decline by up to 4.2 percent if a cap-and-trade system were implemented to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets (7% below 1990 GHGs by 2008-2012). The costs to reach the ultimate goal of some GHG control proponents (e.g., reducing GHGs to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050) would be significantly greater. However, these estimates assume that the government will auction off the rights to emit greenhouse gases as opposed to simply giving these rights away, which is the
approach often discussed in the U.S. and what has actually been implemented in Europe.

• Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide 86 percent of our current energy needs. It is not currently feasible for the alternative energy sources to significantly expand their energy contribution sufficiently in the near-term to substitute for the demand growth, according to the EIA. Consequently, a GHG cap could effectively become an energy production cap – or an energy supply shock.

• The U.S. economy’s past experience with energy supply shocks supports the conclusions of the EIA study. During the previous oil supply shocks (energy supply shocks) of 1974-75, 1979-81 and 1990-91, the economy declined, unemployment rose, and the stock market declined in value.

• Based on the energy efficiency responses to the energy supply shocks of the 1970s, the U.S. economy could be 5.2 percent smaller in 2020 compared to what would otherwise be expected if cap-and-trade regulations are imposed. This equates to a potential income loss of about $10,800 for a family of four for the initial Kyoto GHG reduction target.

• Technical difficulties in measuring and verifying the validity of traded GHG allowances imply that the global market will be inefficient, and subject to manipulation and fraud. Government regulations that fail to delineate future GHG control levels add more uncertainty. These uncertainties raise further questions regarding the efficacy of the cap-and-trade regulations.
When evaluated as a whole, cap-and-trade regulations are likely to impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy. These costs argue against implementing cap-and-trade regulations as a response to concerns about the potential contribution of GHGs to global warming.

Belching Moose Are (Partly) To Blame For Global Warming

Ok, enough is enough; cut out the bull (moose) about man-caused global warming. I wonder if the United Nations and IPCC have factored this into their computer climate models? I'm sure they will say they have. It is humorous anyway.
Peter

from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimate

Belching moose add to global warming
Wed Aug 22, 3:12 PM ET
A grown moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2,100 kilograms (4,630 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers said Wednesday.
That is more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted on a round-trip flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Oslo to the Chilean capital Santiago, according to Scandinavian Airlines.
"An adult moose emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a year. But methane gas is much stronger than carbon dioxide, so to get the equivalent you have to multiply by 21," professor Odd Harstad at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences told AFP.

With an estimated 140,000 moose roaming Norway's forests, that is a total of of 294,000,000 kilograms of CO2 per year.
But Harstad said that was no reason to begin killing off the entire moose population.
"Moose have very important functions in nature. They are ruminants that eat the grass. If we don't have ruminants, we have too much grass and that changes the landscape and has consequences for the flora and fauna," he said.
Harstad said the figure of 100 kilograms of methane gas was a rough estimate based on earlier calculations for beef cows in Norway.

As is the case with cows and other ruminants, methane is produced from the microbes in the moose's stomach which help break down the roughage they eat.
Because methane gas is stronger than carbon dioxide, it is considered even more harmful to the environment. Both methane and carbon dioxide are so-called greenhouses gases, one of the main causes of global warming.

Another Global Warming Skeptic.....

Here is another informed comment about past climate changes and their obvious lack of connection to the modern industrial era and the burning of fossil fuels.
Peter

from: http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/06/04/a-momentary-lapse-of-reason/


jarxan Says: June 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
The climate is much more complex than current “public debate” suggests. Steady warming started in the early 1800s, well before “greenhouse gas” emissions were large. No one has yet explained the little ice age of the 15th century. Other earlier dramatic changes in climate are unexplained include (a) drouth the US southwest in the 1200-1400 period, (b) drouth in the Syrian area in the mid 1st millenium, (c) dramatic rainfall changes in southern India 5-6,000 years ago. I have been involved in computer simulations of complex physical systems for over 50 years and I am confident that NO ONE knows how to simulate the climate with high (even good) confidence for the next 50-100 years. Reducing greenhouse gases is a prudent step but no one should believe that it is THE cure for global warming.

Companies Gear Up For Greenhouse Gas Limits

Companies are betting strict legislation limiting, controlling, or affecting the emission of "greenhouse gases" is going to be enacted by the US congress. Either that, or they are hedging their bets and playing both sides. The amount of money, the effects on our economy and on our pocketbooks is staggering. We're already seeing rising food costs because of the laws passed and the subsidies being given to companies growing corn and distilling it into ethanol fuel.

It is apparent this is just the beginning of the attempt (in vain I claim) to stop global warming and control global climate change. An entire new industry is being created based on the false premise than man is causing global warming and that man can control it. Read this and weep over the insanity of it all. Maybe we should just accept the inevitable and join the party, (by investing). What do you think?
Peter

From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18910692/
Companies gear up for greenhouse gas limits
Trading of permits grows as Congress considers caps
Congress hasn't come up with a plan for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, but U.S. companies are wagering billions of dollars that it will.

Convinced that rules aimed at slowing climate change are inevitable, coal-fired power generators are reexamining construction plans, fund managers are raising billions of dollars to invest in projects to combat climate change, insurance firms are devising new products and at least one utility has inserted a novel global-warming provision in a contract.
"It's a matter of when, not if," said Paul Hanrahan, chief executive of AES in Arlington.

The companies are moving now as Senate committees consider five bills that would create a cap-and-trade system, which would issue tradable allowances for limited greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, 21 major corporations have joined a coalition pressing for "immediate action to enact mandatory national legislation."

The Bush administration's opposition to all the mandatory-cap-and-trade proposals hasn't deterred the flurry of activity in executive suites. Wall Street also is mobilizing, with attention to climate change at investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, insurance firms such as Marsh and hedge funds such as Cheyne Capital Management. Clifford Chance, a London law and consulting firm, estimated that the value of credits traded in the voluntary market would increase 16-fold, to $400 million, this year and swell to $3 trillion by 2010, even without legislation.

Cap-and-trade systemAmong utilities, AES, which owns facilities in two dozen countries, has formed a partnership with General Electric to invest in U.S. projects that will eliminate 10 million metric tons of existing greenhouse-gas output a year by 2010, primarily by reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Those projects would generate credits that could be sold in a cap-and-trade system; until then, the credits will be sold in the voluntary market for credits.

Wisconsin Energy, a Milwaukee utility, sold its nuclear plant to FLP Group in December, writing a novel stipulation into the deal. Under the terms, Wisconsin Energy would own for seven years whatever credits might be given to the plant for generating electricity without emitting carbon dioxide. After that, the two companies would each get half of the credits.

Companies are also taking a tougher look at plans for new coal plants, which produce a lot of carbon dioxide. The prospect of potentially costly greenhouse-gas regulation was one factor in a pledge made by the private-equity firms that are buying Texas utility TXU to shelve eight of the company's 11 proposed coal plants.

The money flowing into investment funds focused on climate-change issues still pales next to the huge amounts of capital flowing into conventional energy projects that emit carbon dioxide. But a growing number of influential banks and industrial firms have vested interests in projects tied to limiting greenhouse gases.

Mark Schwartz, former chief executive of Soros Fund Management and former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia, has teamed with Jesse M. Fink, co-founder and former chief operating officer of Priceline.com, to start a $300 million fund called MissionPoint Capital Partners to invest in projects related to climate change.

$1.5 billion invested in 'clean technology'
Goldman Sachs said it has invested $1.5 billion over the past two years in what it calls "alternative energy" and "clean technology." These investments promise good returns without new regulations, a spokesman said.

One investment that depends more heavily on climate concerns: a $2 billion coal gasification power project. Goldman subsidiary Cogentrix Energy last month signed a letter of intent to become the lead equity partner in the Texas power plant that would separate carbon dioxide from other emissions for use in enhanced oil recovery or underground storage. This will make the plant more expensive, but the technology could pay bigger dividends if regulations put a premium on global-warming gases.
MORE FROM MSNBC.COM
Goldman has also invested in a wind-farm developer; a solar photovoltaic cell maker; a wind turbine manufacturer; a cellulosic ethanol firm; and the Chicago Climate Exchange, where U.S. companies trade carbon credits on a voluntary basis.
CONTINUED: Carbon regulation 'in the works'
1 2 Next >

Carbon Emissions and Global Warming: A BIG DEAL

If there is anyone who does not understand the seriousness of the issue of "carbon emissions" (primarily carbon dioxide, CO2), and their relationship to global warming and supposed climate change, this article from the NY Times sheds some light.

This is not just a scientific issue, but a political issue at every level. These conflicts range from local zoning ordinances governing whether an individual can put up a windmill in their back yard, to states debating whether more coal burning power plants should be build, to our Congress in Washington, D.C. This article reveals the political concerns maneuvering for position that is going on at the international level. The U.S. is currently at odds with many of our usually most staunch allies, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and now Japan.

This is very serious and we must learn all we can and communicate with our leaders what we know and how we think. Here is the article from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/world/europe/26climate.html?
Peter


U.S. Rebuffs Germany on Greenhouse Gas Cuts
By HELENE COOPER and ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 26, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 25 — The United States has rejected Germany’s proposal for deep long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, setting the stage for a battle that will pit President Bush against his European allies at next month’s meeting of the world’s richest countries.

In unusually harsh language, Bush administration negotiators took issue with the German draft of the communiqué for the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, complaining that the proposal “crosses multiple red lines in terms of what we simply cannot agree to.”
“We have tried to tread lightly, but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position,” the American response said.

Germany, backed by Britain and now Japan, has proposed cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who will be the host of the meeting in the Baltic Sea resort of Heiligendamm next month, has been pushing hard to get the Group of 8 to take significant action on climate change.

It had been a foregone conclusion that the Western European members of the Group of 8 — Germany, Italy, France and Britain — would back the reductions. But on Thursday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan threw his lot in with the Europeans, and proposed cutting carbon emissions as part of a new framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose mandatory caps on gases end in 2012.

“The Kyoto Protocol was the first, concrete step for the human race to tackle global warming, but we must admit that it has limitations,” Mr. Abe said at a conference in Tokyo. He specifically called on the United States and China, the biggest producers of carbon emissions, to lead the fight against global warming.

The United States has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because of concerns about damage to the American economy. Bush administration officials have also balked because China and India are not part of it.

("The US opposes Kyoto because it will have no effect on
global warming." Peter)

The push back by the Bush administration over the German proposal has left many European diplomats furious. “The United States, on this issue, is virtually isolated,” one European diplomat said on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules, and then added, “with the exception of other big polluters.”

Both Ms. Merkel and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain have, in private talks with President Bush, pushed for the United States to agree to the European proposal.

Kristen A. Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House on environmental issues, said: “All the G-8 countries are committed to pursuing an agreement. We just come at it from different perspectives.”

A clearly disappointed Ms. Merkel, speaking to Germany’s lower house of Parliament on Thursday, sought to lower expectations that Mr. Bush would agree to the more ambitious agenda sought by Europe and Japan. “I can say quite openly that, today, I don’t know whether we will succeed in that at Heiligendamm,” she said.

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, produces between a fifth and a quarter of the world’s emissions, according to government data.
Emissions in Europe and the United States have been slowing of late, with a slight drop in the United States in 2006. But much more growth is forecast by various agencies on both sides of the Atlantic and particularly in Asia.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.

A Glacial Pace On Warming- The Pressure is Building

This is an editorial from the NY Times. Various factions are stepping up the pressure on the Bush Administration and the EPA to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I say test the concept in California first. If people don't mind paying ever more for fuel and electricity, then go for it. My guess is people will not be happy. They will be paying more and not seeing any positive effects.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter

Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');

Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.

A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.

“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.

California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.

Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.