Up until 1992, Europe called on the world to limit temperature increases.  Given the difficulty of quantifying what such a task entailed, when it came time to craft a treaty (the UNFCCC or Rio Treaty), they realized that was a pretty absurd metric even for a UN agreement.  So they went for the (arguably) less absurd promise to “stabiliz[e] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.  The UN’s IPCC refused on each of three occasions that they were asked to quantify that particular promise, claiming that was a “political decision.”  Hmmm.  Re-read the mandate. Sounds to me like something scientists are being paid an awful lot of money to look into.

Anyhow, it dawned on some folks that maybe Man doesn’t dictate such things – say, Al Gore, who prominently features a chart in his movie purporting to reconstruct, from proxy data, 650,000 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (as well as temperatures over the same period…which charts he elects to not superimpose for the simple reason that it would show temps generally rise and fall before CO2 concentrations, damning his thesis).  The only thing Man can dictate, in theory, is his own GHG emissions (and only in theory — and press releases – as Europe is proving).  His chart shows them going up up and way up, and down down down all before Man could possibly have had any influence whatsoever.

So, as I have pointed out in detail, of late Europe has decided to loudly and frequently claim that it has agreed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C above pre-Industrial times (which happen to fall at the tail end of the Little Ice Age).  The problem, of course, is that they have agreed to no such thing.  But, as with most things in the Euro-Kyoto context, it is so because they say it’s so — not because it’s really so (see post-below about EU emissions and rhetoric).  We know not what, if anything, this rhetorical sleight of hand has to do with, e.g., Pat Michaels pointing out that observations over the past 3+ decades indicate that we should expect up to 1.7 degrees C warming (others say slightly less, none of which says anything about Man’s possible involvement).

Now comes the UN itself, or at least an affiliated panel driven by Ted Turner’s UN Foundation, betraying that silly notion you held that they already had “a detailed plan for combating climate change.”  According to Voice of America, “A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. VOA’s correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.”  Oh, and they finally get to the point, calling for a carbon tax (you remember the success with which they have pushed for the authority to impose a “Tobin tax”).

That old temperature ceiling again.  Which now deserves its own treaty, given how that other one is doing. My colleague Iain Murray suggests that this represents the UN saying that the to-date sufficiently alarmist IPCC is no longer alarmist enough for the task at hand.  That is one reading.  Another is that Kyoto is now a subtly acknowledged failure.

On her perch at the CBS News Blog, CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric bemoans the prospect that Al Gore’s Hollywood routine might turn off the same mainstream America who need to be convinced about the “climate crisis” (d’ya think?).

Unfortunately, that uniquely sagacious insight from the Left is then lost in the dust of some rather routine blather about George W. Bush and climate change, including the rather clueless:

And yet, after a period of time of not conceding global warming even exists, President Bush used the term “climate change” for the first time and has talked about a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems like we’re reaching critical mass when it comes to this issue. And all the experts agree. [OK, I gratuitously left in that part about appealing to the authority of Bush's stance, and the nugget about universal agreement just to antagonize those who actually follow this issue].

June 11 — President Bush delivers a White House Rose Garden speech on the issue of climate change. While he seemingly acknowledges the existence and dangers of global climate change, once again there is no decisive course of action taken or announced. (6/12/2001 Chicago Tribune, “More study needed on warming, Bush insists”)

We’re liviing a “science fiction nightmare.”

A reader writes:

Right now I’m trying to figure our how to open my own country, so that I can sell carbon offsets for not industrializing.

Sounds like a plan for Peter Gibbons.

As Chris pointed out yesterday, you can have fun with baselines. Why choose 1990 as the baseline for analyzing Kyoto performance rather from than the actual signing of the treaty in 1997 or, if you’re worried about the evil polluting anti-Kyoto US President, from his election to office?

Here’s another example, from the scientist who knows the most about Greenland in the world, in response to a date chosen by Al Gore:

Petr Chylek of the department of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia notes that Gore in his movie “suggests the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005.”

But, Chylek points out, “1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland” and that “if Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner.”

Another inconvenient truth…

Some global-warming related stories you may have missed:

• The EU’s rapidly rising transport emissions mean that they won’t meet their Kyoto targets “without additional measures.”
• Ireland is in a particular pickle with its ransport emissions.
• British government Ministers are contributing to the problem.
• Hedge funds are rapidly retreating from investment in renewable energy technologies, which is showing signs of being a classic bubble market.
• Sen. Feinstein says mandatory caps on emissions will not pass the Senate for “years.”
• Scientist Roy Spencer points out the serious deficiencies of global climate models.

Finally, here’s what a European Environment Energy official has to say about the transport issue:

Technical advances, such as cleaner, more fuel efficient engines are very important but we cannot innovate our way out of the emissions problem from transport.

In other words, European bureaucrats can’t see how scientists might develop radical new solutions, so have decided they will have to impose rationing instead.

From the New York Post’s Page 6:

HOLLYWOOD’S wealthy liberals can now avoid any guilt they might feel for consuming so much non-renewable fossil fuel in their private jets, their SUVs, and their multiple air-conditioned mansions. This year’s Oscar goodie bag contained gift certificates representing 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass, which describes itself as a “carbon offset retailer.” The 100,000 pounds “are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter,” a press release from TerraPass asserts. “For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, 20 hours in a private jet and a large house in Los Angeles. The greenhouse gas reductions will be accomplished through TerraPass’ [program] of verified wind energy, cow power [collecting methane from manure] and efficiency projects.” Voila, guilt-free consumption! It reminds us of the era when rich Catholics paid the church for “dispensations” that would shorten their terms in Purgatory.

Now who is most likely to be able to afford carbon offsets, hmm? My carbon footprint is 959 lbs per annum, according to safeclimate.net. How many people got goodie bags this year? Let’s say 100. So that’s the equivalent of 10,000 ordinary people’s emission offsets given to the extraordinarily wealthy.

If I do offset my carbon output, I can say with assurance I will NOT be using Terrapass.

Jon Adler likes what he’s reading from Mark Sanford.

From the Financial Times:

Five governors from western states, frustrated at the lack of administration and congressional action on climate change, yesterday agreed to work together to set a regional target in the next six months to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar, governor of California and a member of the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, told the National Press Club the target signalled to the federal government that if it did not lead, the states would: “We will create a cleaner environment, take care of our air and of our water, and follow the Kyoto treaty to a certain extent and really fight global warming.”

Mr Schwarzeneggar, who has spearheaded the most aggressive of the states’ efforts – to cut California’s emissions by a quarter by 2020 – has been joined by the governors of New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. The group hopes to agree within 18 months on a market-based cap and trade programme to cut emissions across a range of sectors in each state and to set up a registry to track and manage emissions.

The western initiative, however, threatens to add to the patchwork of regulations that operate across the US, with different standards in different states. It follows a more limited gubernatorial initiative in December 2005 from the governors of seven north-eastern and mid-Atlantic states that targeted emissions from just the utility industry. Three more states are set to join that plan this year.

Via Peter Glover’s new blog we are directed to this from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

Indeed he does.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Perhaps not Gore directly, but his household apparently did.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

As far as I’m concerned Al Gore is entirely at liberty to use as much or as little power to heat, light and cool his home as he wishes, as long as he’s meeting the bills it’s completely up to him.

But that’s not quite the point, is it?

I’m not sure if this was meant to be funny, but the Wikipedia entry for “Kyoto Protocol” says this in its subsection on Russia:

The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its targets.

So there you have it. If our economy collapses, we may yet meet Kyoto.

In the latest installment of what has become an increasingly sorry drama, the European Union’s Ambassador to the US, former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, has fired off a detailed if now typically misleading missive to Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA).  The goal of his February 22 letter is to correct the record about “incorrect or incomplete information [that] has been presented about the European Union (EU) climate policy. In particular, this concerns the EU’s achievements to date by comparison to achievements in the US, and whether the EU will meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol, which is to reduce its emissions by 8% by 2012.”

Amb. Bruton’s complaint, in short, is that not everyone is bending to Europe’s insistence that all discussion about greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) be in the context of a 1990 emissions baseline, which affords Europe credit for two political decisions preceding and unrelated to the Kyoto Protocol or any effort to reduce GHGs. More modern performance, when it comes to light, presents Europe with a serious embarrassment for being out-performed by the US, particularly carbon dioxide which is the target of all proposals floating around Washington.

Specifically, Mr. Bruton’s letter is in response to an assertion by White House spokesman Tony Snow that although “there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe, we are doing a better job of reducing emissions here”. Senate Democrats rushed to Europe’s defense with charts purporting to denigrate the US performance but which, as my colleague Iain Murray noted, merely changed the subject from an accurate assertion while upon scrutiny also affirming it. 

See here for more, including a fun EU chart that Mr. Bruton might want to study.

Watching Hollywood gush over Al Gore last night put me in the frame of mind of Monty Python’s sendup of the Academy Awards in Episode 39 (“Grandstand”) where host Eric Idle nails the vorbose pomposity of Oscar night:  “No, not that moment. Although that moment is coming, in a moment. The moment I’m talking about is the moment when we present the award for the cast with the most awards award, and this year is no exception.”

Gore certainly qualifies for the man with the most awards award, symbolicly speaking, since it is obvious the ceremony included his duet with Leo DeCaprio just in case Gore’s film didn’t win the Oscar–thay had to make sure he got before the microphone somehow.  Eric Idle’s spoof could have come straight from Leo:

“There can be no finer honour than to welcome into our midst tonight a guest who has not only done only more than not anyone for our Society, but nontheless has only done more.”

Sounds like Hollywood’s view of our Al.

This video shows economist Bjorn Lomborg explaining why, when taking on massive world issues, prioritizing problems isn’t as important prioritizing solutions. (The video is 17 minutes long, but Lomborg keeps things moving pretty well.)

Well, the expected has now become the actual, with An Inconvenient Truth winning the Oscar for best documentary last night. Some critics have pointed out that the film probably violates Rule 12 of the Academy’s standards, which requires that a documentary, even when using reenactments, be based on facts not fiction. John Berlau has criticized the use of animation to illustrate polar bears in danger, when the animation doesn’t seem to rest on facts. The problem here isn’t just that the film gets lots of complicated scientific facts wrong, as Marlo Lewis has documented , but seems to be that the producers knowing used and emphasized fictional devices to make the fiction look like fact.

Here’s a few global warming-related stories from around the world today:

• Germany may have to sacrifice its luxury car industry to pursue global warming mitigation policies.
• Renault is expecting to have to raise its prices for new cars as a result of the same policies.
• China and India are raking it in as European companies, unable to reduce emissions, buy credits from those countries. Italy will spend the equivalent of the economy of Iceland this year.
• UN data confirm that America’s recent performance on emissions is much better than Europe’s.
• Greece’s emissions are rising sharply, an embarrassment for Stavros Dimas, the EU Environment Commissioner, who is Greek.

The Washington Times story about the UN data also includes the following:

Global warming is not a “top-tier” issue, according to a Pew Research survey of 1,708 adults. Respondents ranked the issue fourth from last in a 23-item list of policy priorities for the White House and Congress. Only 19 percent expressed “deep concern” about global warming. A minority — 47 percent — blamed it on human activity. Among conservative Republicans, the figure was 20 percent; among liberal Democrats, 71 percent.

“The issue is of relatively low priority for members of both parties,” the survey said. It was conducted Jan. 10 to 15, with a margin of error of three percentage points.

Sorry, Al.

From Roy Spencer in the New York Post today :

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world – possibly none – have a sufficiently thorough, “big picture” understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Here, for example, is an insight that even many climate scientists are unaware of: The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth’s climate is the one we understand the least – precipitation.

Lynne Kiesling’s blog Knowledge Problem is one of the best sources you’ll find for free-market thoughts on energy issues. Here, she raises an interesting point about carbon offsets after pointing out some slippery arguments about them:

Why do I support the development of carbon offset transactions and their brokers? Because it’s a Coase-style private, voluntary, transaction-based approach that enables private parties to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

You know, I think I agree. If carbon emissions are a problem, this is certainly a better approach than the Pigou Tax route.

On the other hand, some of the current carbon offset programs are more like a shakedown than a Coasean bargain. Any program that invests in this scam, for instance, is a poor bargain. Here’s how Fred Smith summed it up in his recent Senate testimony:

Under the Kyoto Protocol, for example, companies in the developing world that reduce output of the greenhouse gas HFC-23 are allocated carbon credits representing the amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent that they reduce. In total the amount of credits so allocated are worth about $5.9 billion when sold to countries that want those credits. Yet reducing HFC-23 is actually a simple process, achieved by installing scrubbers at a modest cost. According to a study published in the journal Nature last week, installation of those scrubbers could have been financed by loans or grants at a total cost of about $130 million. Thus almost $6 billion has been diverted away from other uses into the pockets of industry in the developing world. This is a massively inefficient way of achieving modest emissions cuts. Worse, it has now become apparent that China is creating HFCs – with 12,000 times the global warming potential of CO2 – for the purpose of being paid to destroy them under Kyoto. This is what such schemes have always created, from the British in India offering bounties for poisonous cobras – which led to mass breeding of the creatures – to the modern-day version of that ploy.

Yet a carefully-managed carbon offset program would be worth investigating and perhaps even, especially if it invested in “no regrets” projects, worth joining.

For the record, by the way, my household’s carbon footprint came out as below average, when I measured it a few days ago at safeclimate.net. So my personal Coasean bargain might be quite affordable.

One final point comes from a commenter at Lynne’s site arguing against carbon offsets:

To me, the most important feature of Private Offsets is that they are geared to higher-income (if not elite) consumers and there is no better way to undermine costly social change than to give this group a way take their own dollars and opt-out.

To be encouraged, then…

Ross McKitrick, an expert reviewer for the IPCC and who has written papers for CEI, has a must-read article in Newsweek. He makes several telling points, including:

To be sure, the IPCC does an impressive job of mobilizing experts to
produce a report it hopes will be of service to the world. No one should
trivialize this achievement. But let’s not make the error of allowing a
glossy summary to trivialize the complexities and uncertainties in
climate change. After all, if the issues were so simple, you wouldn’t
need 3,700 experts to write the report. It is a paradox that some of the
strongest claims of unanimity in science are made on a subject involving
some of the deepest intellectual disagreements and uncertainties.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

It is a bit of a surprise that the Kerrys would chose a title–This Moment on Earth–that is so close to the title of Gregg Easterbrook’s superb 1995 book, A Moment on the Earth.  Environmentalists trashed Gregg’s book.  His subtitle tells you all you need to know about why: “The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism.”

I doubt we’ll need to read to page 14 to find that the Kerrys’ Moment on Earth is radically different from Easterbrook’s Moment.