Bjørn Lomborg: Stop ‘Applauding’ Alarmist Policies that Hurt the Poor


Bjørn Lomborg has a good piece up on how the latest IPCC report actually shows that the costs of global warming have been exaggerated by the media and by politicians enamored with green policies that ultimately hurt the world’s poor. An excerpt:

US President Barack Obama promised that policies to combat global warming would create five million new green jobs. The EU claimed that green energy would help “improve the EU’s security of energy supply.”

With the completion of the latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we can now see that this narrative is mostly wrong. The first installment of the IPCC report showed that there is indeed a climate problem – emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO₂, lead to higher temperatures, which will eventually become a net problem for the world. This result was highly publicized.

But the report also showed that global warming has dramatically slowed or entirely stopped in the last decade and a half. Almost all climate models are running far too hot, meaning that the real challenge of global warming has been exaggerated. Germany and other governments called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted.

The second IPCC installment showed that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP – the equivalent of less than one year of recession. So, while the IPCC clearly establishes that global warming is a problem, the cost is obviously much less than that of the twentieth century’s two world wars and the Great Depression.

Again, not surprisingly, politicians tried to have this finding deleted. British officials found the peer-reviewed estimate “completely meaningless,” and, along with Belgium, Norway, Japan, and the US, wanted it rewritten or stricken. One academic speculated that governments possibly felt “a little embarrassed” that their previous exaggerated claims would be undercut by the UN.

The third installment of the IPCC report showed that strong climate policies would be more expensive than claimed as well – costing upwards of 4% of GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100. And the real cost will likely be much higher, because these numbers assume smart policies, instantly enacted, with key technologies magically available.

And. . .

We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.

The whole thing here.

Switchgate: Cobalt Driving Lessons


Amid Washington’s media hysteria, General Motors has called in NASA engineers to verify its claim that recalled Chevy Cobalts are safe to drive — with only a key in the ignition — until owners get to a dealer to install a new ignition switch.

“In 2010, the space agency was (also) asked by the U.S. Transportation Department to investigate whether Toyotas . . . might have electronic defects that contributed to incidents of sudden, unintended acceleration,” reported USA Today. “The investigation found no electronic issue that could cause the problem.”

That would be news to USA Today readers. And Washington Post, ABC News, and CNN viewers.

Cheering the Holder Justice Department’s punishment of Toyota last month with a $1.2 billion fine, not one of these news outlets — or dozens of others — mentioned that NASA had absolved the Japanese automaker of the primary charge that electronically malfunctioning accelerators caused Toyotas to careen out of control in 2010.

It’s deja vu all over again. Lacking concrete information, news outlets are once again jumping to conclusions about GM’s recalled vehicles by relying on trial-lawyer-fed safety advocates like Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety. “Our advice to consumers is, ‘park it now,”‘ Ditlow told a credulous Reuters reporter, challenging GM’s advice.

This is the same Clarence Ditlow who approved NBC News’ scandalous rigging of GM pickups to explode two decades ago. The same Ditlow who claimed that Toyota’s electronic throttles were at fault in sudden acceleration deaths.

Ditlow and his media parrots are likely to be proved wrong — again — when NASA reviews Cobalt ignitions. I drove a 2006 Cobalt SS this week with the original, faulty ignition. As advised by GM, I drove it with only a key in the ignition. Additional weight on the keychain can cause the ignition to rotate back into “accessory” position, thus causing the car to stall.

Contrary to frenzied claims that this causes the car to veer out of control, the car remains drivable. The brakes work, as does the steering. However, the steering loses its power making it more difficult to turn — which was surely disorienting for the many impaired drivers among Switchgate’s victims. Regardless of the circumstance, GM should be held accountable for these incidents (the faulty ignition may well have its roots in GM’s acrimonious relationship with supplier Delphi in the mid-2000s, reports the Detroit News).

However, after a day driving the Cobalt with only a key in the ignition — over Detroit’s worst roads (and they are bad) — the ignition never faltered. My observation is that the switch’s quality is not on par with Japanese rivals of the same period (thus Detroit’s reputation gap) — it’s Off-to-Accessory-to-Start turns are soft while a Honda Civic ignition, for example, clicks sharply into place.

Nevertheless, the public should be reassured that Cobalts are safe and will not fly out of control. Just as electronic gremlins never caused Toyotas to suddenly accelerate.

Tags: Clarence Ditlow , Chevy Cobalt , Switchgate


EPA Wins Appeal on Power Plant Emissions and Mercury



The Environmental Protection Agency took home a sweeping victory Tuesday when an appeals court upheld the agency’s pollution limits for mercury and air toxics from power plants.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s rule, known as MATS, denying challenges from states, utilities and industry groups that argued the rules came out of a flawed regulatory process and illegally imposed exorbitant costs on power producers that will force dozens of power plants to shut down.

Tuesday’s decision, which also shot down arguments from environmental groups that it was too weak, was the latest chapter in a saga that began during the Clinton administration. Its strict pollution control requirements will push many of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants into retirement when it takes effect in 2015.

The court upheld EPA’s decision to take into account environmental damage from the pollutants, rather than just health-based harms, when it decided to regulate. And the agency based its decision on the impacts of hazardous pollution broadly, rather than just emissions from power plants — a “commonsense approach,” wrote Judge Judith Rogers, to “statutory ambiguity” that was within the bounds of EPA’s discretion.

The rest here.

Is Anybody Watching Years of Living Dangerously?


Years of Living Dangerously, Showtime’s celebrity-filled, James Cameron–produced, documentary series is certainly garnering plenty of media praise: See here, here, here, and here for just a few examples.

But is anybody watching it? Years didn’t crack the Top 100 cable shows on Sunday April 13. For comparison purposes, the Showtime drama Shameless was No. 12 on Sunday April 6

As the goal of the series is to communicate the dangers of global warming to viewers, I’m not sure things are working out as planned. 

Eat Road Kill to Save the Planet


What is it with environmentalists and eating meat by the side of the road? Grist:

[. . .] Some argue that salvaging road kill is actually the most ethical and environmentally responsible way to eat meat: It’s a way to maintain carnivorous habits while still opting out of highly questionable conventional means. “The meat industry is pretty extraordinary, particularly things like red meat. It takes something like 27 kilos of CO2 to produce each kilo [of beef],” Cummings says. “I think most people think about [the environmental impact of] jumping in their car, but they might not consider the environmental disaster of beef.”

Just Google “roadkill sustainable meat” to see how often this idea pops up.




California Turns to Drought Expert Bibi Netanyahu



California is having its driest year in recorded history. Ten percent of the state is experiencing “exceptional drought,” the highest possible level, according to the United States Drought Monitor. Most of the rest of the state is suffering “severe drought,” and since California produces much of the fruits, vegetables, dairy and wine that Americans eat, the crisis will affect the entire U.S. food economy.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and California Governor Jerry Brown Jr. signed an agreement last month for Israel and California to collaborate on research and development, and joint projects in both countries – they were acknowledging how advanced Israel’s water technology has become.

“Israel has demonstrated how efficient a country can be,” Brown remarked at the signing ceremony. Indeed: How not to run out of water is apparently something California can learn from Israel.

The rest here.

Exit question: How will Governor Brown’s embrace of Israeli technology affect the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement — BDS — of Israeli companies?

NYT Op-Ed: Climate Alarmism Doesn’t Work


This is great op-ed by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute on how alarmist ”scare tactics” aren’t convincing more people of the threat of global warming. The opener:

IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

How funny is that? “Hey, honey? You know, this global warming looks really bad. We better get the bigger truck.”

The rest here.

Callous ‘old GM’? Cobalt was recalled multiple times


In November, 2004, General Motors recalled 2005 model year Chevy Cobalts for faulty headlamps that could cause “additional glare, increasing the risk of crash” to oncoming drivers. In January, 2007, GM recalled more Cobalts to install energy-absorbing plastic in the headliner trim “to reduce the severity of head impacts in a crash.” And in March, 2010, GM again recalled Cobalts to replace crabby power steering motors that would fail “requiring greater driver effort (and) increasing the risk of a crash.”

So much for claims by politicians and their media chorus last week that the late Chevy Cobalt was Exhibit A of an “old GM” that put the bottom line above customer safety.

In fact the multiple GM recalls prove that Swtichgate — the latest, February, 2014 recall of Cobalts (and its sister Saturns and Pontiacs) for faulty ignition switches tied to 13 deaths –– is an anomaly in an industry that relentlessly tracks vehicle faults and recalls them in a timely manner. Last year, more vehicles were recalled than were sold — and this year the industry is on track to recall more vehicles than the record-setting year (30 million) of 2004. Such is the automakers’ obsession with satisfying customers in an intensely competitive market.

The truth is that last week’s Switchgate hearings were evidence not of a failed auto-industry culture but a sick Washington culture where trial-lawyer-funded pols grandstand before cameras about products they don’t understand, while witnesses clam up for fear of criminal gotcha probes by circling U.S. attorneys.

“You don’t know anything about anything,” snapped Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D., Calif.), as GM CEO Mary Barra tip-toed through her testimony. Boxer was one of two women — Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D., Mo.) was the other — who led the Barra witch-hunt in part because they could grill the first female auto CEO without looking like bullies.

But the other part is that Boxer and McCaskill are stooges of the trial-lawyer industry — an industry that stands to make millions from Switchgate lawsuits.

Both senators are on the Top Ten list of trial-lawyer campaign contributions, according to In the last six years of available data, McCaskill was No. 2 (behind only Harry Reid) with $374,000 in tort lawyer contributions, while Boxer was No. 10 with nearly $200,000.

They are also among those legislators who have endorsed higher fuel-economy mandates (so-called CAFE laws) — even as the National Academy of Sciences found that CAFE standards cause 1,300 to 2,600 traffic deaths every year (a number that dwarfs Switchgate fatalities) by forcing manufacturers to build smaller and lighter cars.

This is not to excuse GM’s slow response to a ten-year-old defect. But the evidence points not to a corporate conspiracy but to product engineers who failed to classify the switch as a safety defect or who covered up the flaw with a circa-2007 fix that didn’t include a corresponding change in part number.

Such issues will be resolved by an internal GM investigation — and in court. In the meantime, Barra was dragged to Capitol Hill fully aware that any uninformed statement could be twisted into a criminal prosecution. Only last month, Toyota was fined $1.2 billion by the Justice Department. Toyota’s crime? Its Congressional testimony didn’t comport with internal documents expressing concerns about sticky gas pedals — even though NHTSA ultimately concluded sticky gas pedals were not a safety problem.

Saturday Night Live had a field day with Barra’s scripted answers. But Barra and her lawyers were guided by the Toyota precedent. Such is the farce of Congressional “fact-finding” hearings.

Barra even played along with the “Old GM-new GM” ruse in order to simplify the narrative. “We had more of a cost culture,” she said stressing that GM was “changing to a customer culture that focuses on safety and quality.” The media ate it up even as the evidence of the Cobalt’s three prior recalls shows the company has always been concerned about safety.

Quality? Well, according to JD Power, that’s where GM has some catching up to do.

Tags: Chevy Cobalt , McCaskill , GM

New Genetic Study Suggests Polar Bears Can Survive in a Warmer Climate


Well, duh. An excerpt from the Alaska Dispatch:

The new genetic information raises questions about today’s polar bears, classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because of rapidly-changing conditions in their Arctic habitat.

If polar bears survived in the much-warmer conditions that existed in past millennia, Cronin argues, it is logical to assume that they could survive in future warming conditions – even in conditions without summer sea ice in the Arctic. 

“Our data suggests that polar bears have survived a long time, including past glacial and interglacial periods,” he said. “To say they’re not going to survive in the future is speculation.”

The threatened listing applied to polar bears in 2008, was a policy decision, not a scientific decision that accurately reflects polar bears’ likelihood of extinction, Cronin argues. “My interest is science. Can you ignore data from the past just because you don’t like it?” he said.

The whole thing here.

James Lovelock: Stop Trying to Save the World from Climate Change


Via the Telegraph:

The scientist and inventor James Lovelock claims we should stop trying to save the planet from global warming and instead retreat to climate controlled cities

Saving the planet from climate change is ‘beyond our ability’ and we should stop wasting time trying to tackle global warming, a leading scientist has claimed

James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become inhabitable.

Lovelock, who has just published his latest book A Rough Ride To The Future, claims we should be ‘strengthening our defences and making a sustainable retreat.’

“We’re reaching an age in history where you can no longer predict the future with any hope of success.

“We should give up vainglorious attempts to save the world.

“Britain is no longer a world power and we need to leave such schemes to the USA, Japan or China. We should spend out efforts adapting Britain to fight climate change.”

The rest here.

U.S. Navy Can Turn Seawater into Fuel


There’s an old episode of The Munsters where Herman is asked to invest in a scam-company that can turn seawater into uranium.

Um, it’s not uranium, but the U.S. Navy is claiming it can make a “liquid hydrocarbon” fuel for ships and planes from seawater. Via the AFP:

The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as “a game-changer” because it would signficantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: “It’s a huge milestone for us.”

“We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it.

“We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel,” added Cullom.

“Basically, we’ve treated energy like air, something that’s always there and that we don’t worry about too much. But the reality is that we do have to worry about it.”

US experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

The rest here.

This sounds too good to be true, no? But here’s a video from the Navy of an RC plane that flies on the stuff:

Who knows if they’ll ever scale the project up so that it actually becomes an alternative to oil? Stay tuned.

Government Motors Champions Turn on General Motors


Democrats have the Government Motors bailout to thank for their party’s White House and Senate victories in 2012, as Detroit auto company rescues were crucial to holding swing manufacturing states like Ohio and Michigan.

But now that the federal government has exited GM, Democrats and their media cheerleaders are throwing the company under the bus as part of their 2014 War on Business campaign.

Appearing before a Senate Committee Wednesday investigating GM’s recall of 2.6 million vehicles over a faulty ignition switch linked to 13 deaths, GM CEO Mary Barra was harangued as a corporate murderer. Yes, the same Mary Barra who was President Obama’s State of the Union guest. The first female auto CEO! More evidence of why Democrats saved America’s jewel! As NRO’s Jim Geraghty notes in his must-read reporting on this issue, President Obama and his Auto Czar Steve Rattner are suddenly mute on their bailout triumph.

“Look at what happened to General Motors. We saved Made-in-America for domestic auto production. We saved thousands of jobs,” said Senator Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.), in 2010 on her way to reelection — re-election aided by contributions from the UAW, which was the focus of the auto bailout. No bailout, no union campaign funds for Democratic pols.

Yet on Wednesday, McCaskill accused  Barra of a “culture of cover-up” because “she would not talk about specifics at any of these hearings.”

That’s rich.

McCaskill media sympathizers covered up White House intimidation of secured bondholders during the auto bailout. They ignored White House favoritism towards Delphi retirees over white-collar retirees. And they don’t want to talk about the specifics of the curious timing of the feds’ selling their last GM shares in December — just weeks before the company declared its Switchgate liabilities.

“Insider trading?” asks NRO reporter Greg Pollowitz.

Democrats are unconcerned. As they have been of the daily casualties resulting from Obamacare’s stripping of millions of Americans of their insurance. What’s more, Democrats like Michigan Senate candidate Gary Peters (another UAW bailout beneficiary also mute on the Switchgate issue) have attacked cancer patients who have dared complain of their shoddy Obamacare treatment. Imagine if GM were to smear the casualties of Switchgate as drunks and liars.

Sadly, in today’s highly partisan Democrat and media circles, all that matters is defending Obama’s legacy. Any bad news that happened during government ownership of GM? What government ownership?

Tags: GM , Switchgate , Barra

Lomborg: Humans Will Adapt to Climate Change


Here’s the latest from Bjørn​ Lomborg, in which he criticizes the IPCC for ignoring adaptation in their financial models. The opener:

THE media’s response to the latest installment of the UN Climate Panel report will inevitably dwell on the negative effects of global warming — how it will reduce agricultural yields, increase heatwaves and drown communities.

Those stories will be correct, if only in a limited sense of that word. So while reading them, it is worth stepping back and realising that they provide just a partial version of the global warming story.

Yes, global warming is real, it is partly man-made and it’s a long-term problem we must address. But describing it in one-sided, vaguely apocalyptic terms won’t help us find solutions. For example, a previous edition of the UN Climate Panel summary told us rising sea levels, which are indeed happening, would deliver “potential damages to infrastructure in coastal areas …” projected to cost “tens of billions of dollars for individual countries, for example Egypt, Poland, and Vietnam”. Yet while laying out the possibility, they neglect to tell us that these losses will not occur.

Why not? The summary ignored the role of adaptation. For Egypt, the $35 billion estimate came from simply allowing 30 per cent of Egypt’s second biggest city, Alexandria, to be inundated over a 100 years, without the government taking action. That isn’t realistic.

For Poland, $28-46 billion equally came from allowing cities and farmland to be flooded by an extreme 100cm rise in sea level. The Polish analysis, however, showed that even full protection against the extreme flooding would cost much lower than $6.1 billion and with a lower sea level increase of 30cm, the full protection cost would total $2.3 billion.

Will Poland spend $2-6 billion to avoid $28-46 billion in damages? Of course they will. They will adapt just as we have done for most of humanity’s history. This does not mean there are no problems — sea level rise will cause problems, but at $2-6 billion, not $48 billion.

The rest here.

What did the Treasury Dept. Know About GM’s Problems and When did they Know it?


Here’s a timeline from NPR of the ignition-switch issue at GM. Check out the fortuitous timing of the Treasury Department’s sale of its remaining stake in the company in December 2013:

June 1, 2009: GM files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

July 10, 2009: The U.S. Treasury purchases GM assets, giving the government primary ownership of the company.

February 2010: NHTSA again recommends a probe looking into problems with air bags in Cobalts; ODI again decides that there is no correlation and drops the matter.

Oct. 26, 2010: Consumer Reports says GM is considered “reliable” based on scores from road tests and performance on crash tests.

2012: GM identifies four crashes and four corresponding fatalities (all involving 2004 Saturn Ions) along with six other injuries from four other crashes attributable to the defect.

Sept. 4, 2012: GM reports August 2012 sales were up 10 percent from the previous year, with Chevrolet passenger car sales up 25 percent.

June 2013: A deposition by a Cobalt program engineer says the company made a “business decision not to fix this problem,” raising questions of whether GM consciously decided to launch the Cobalt despite knowing of a defect.

Dec. 9, 2013: Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announces the government had sold the last of what was previously a 60 percent stake in GM, ending the bailout. The bailout had cost taxpayers $10 billion on a $49.5 billion investment.

End of 2013: GM determines that the faulty ignition switch is to blame for at least 31 crashes and 13 deaths.

And it’s not just the sale of the final piece of equity that looks suspicious. Here’s a timeline from the Treasury Department. Note the activity by the Treasury Department occurring after the NHSTA’s second warning to GM in February 2010, including GM’s IPO:

On April 20, 2010, GM made its final loan repayment, leaving the remaining investment 
in the form of common and preferred stock. 
On November 18, 2010, Treasury recovered approximately $13.5 billion in conjunction 
with the new company’s IPO. The IPO reduced Treasury’s stake from approximately 61 
percent to 33 percent, or 500 million shares of GM common stock. 

GM going public was necessary for taxpayers to get paid back. Here’s the prospectus. I did a quick search for ”ignition” and received two hits, neither in regard to the switch defect. Cobalt, the model at the center of the problem, is not mentioned at all. And here’s the “Risk Factor” dealing with recalls:

The costs and effect on our reputation of product recalls could materially adversely affect our business.

From time to time, we recall our products to address performance, compliance, or safety-related issues. The costs we incur in connection with these recalls typically include the cost of the part being replaced and labor to remove and replace the defective part. In addition, product recalls can harm our reputation and cause us to lose customers, particularly if those recalls cause consumers to question the safety or reliability of our products. Any costs incurred or lost sales caused by future product recalls could materially adversely affect our business. Conversely, not issuing a recall or not issuing a recall on a timely basis can harm our reputation and cause us to lose customers for the same reasons as expressed above.

Is this statement sufficient to cover GM for the size of the problem that was reportedly known since 2005 and has resulted in the recall of 2.6 million cars? Would GM ever have gone public if this switch issue and the corresponding deaths were public? I highly doubt it.

Continuing with the timeline from Treasury:

On December 15, 2010, GM repurchased all of the preferred stock Treasury held for 
approximately $2.1 billion. Treasury’s remaining investment consisted solely of GM 
common stock. 
On December 21, 2012, GM repurchased 200 million shares of common stock for 
approximately $5.5 billion in net proceeds to taxpayers. At that time, Treasury announced 
its intent to exit the GM investment in 12-15 months through a series of pre-defined 
trading plans that began in January 2013 and sold shares into the market daily. 
On June 6, 2013, Treasury sold 30 million shares of GM common stock when GM was 
included on the S&P 500 index for approximately $1.0 billion. 
In total, Treasury launched four pre-defined written trading plans, completing the sale of 
its shares of GM common stock on December 9, 2013. The proceeds from the four 
trading plans totaled $9.2 billion. 

Taxpayers have recovered $39 billion on the investment in General Motors, but had we 
not acted to support the automotive industry, the cost to the country would have been 
substantial — in terms of lost jobs, lost tax revenue, reduced economic production, and 
other consequences. 

Here’s the chart of GM’s stock for the last six months. Did the Treasury Department get lucky with it sales or is the government guilty of insider trading? Is GM guilty of securities fraud for not mentioning the switch defect in their IPO prospectus? Did the Treasury Department know about the switch defect and still let GM go public without the proper disclosures?

At the very least, the SEC should start asking questions, treating the Treasury Department as if it were any other investor — there’s more than enough here to merit an investigation.

Urine Alarmism at Time


Here’s a real headline from Time. How can you not click on it?

No, It’s Not Safe to Pee in the Pool, Says Science

Oooh, science — it must be true then. Time continues with this explanation:

A new study says chlorine doesn’t, in fact, kill the contents of our urine, but rather reacts with it to create potentially dangerous byproducts. The research, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, used a technique called membrane introduction mass spectrometry to measure the presence of dangerous byproducts in pools. Uric acid from human urine mixes with chlorine to create the cyanogen chloride (CNCI) and trichloramine (NCl3). CNCI is a toxic compound that can harm organs like the lungs, heart, and central nervous system. NCl3 has been linked with acute lung injury.

“A common misconception within the swimming community is that urination in pools is an acceptable practice, although signs and placards are posted in many pools to encourage proper hygiene. It is also well known that many swimmers ignore these warnings, particularly noteworthy among these are competitive swimmers,” said study author Ernest R. Blatchley III, a professor of civil engineering at Purdue University, in a statement.

Time writer Alexandra Sifferlin, however, never questions the validity of what she just wrote, however. The first question that I asked myself was how many people relieving themselves in the pool would it take to kill a swimmer? That really should be in her piece. The answer, not surprising to me at least, makes the Time piece idiotic and irrelevant: Via Ars Technica:

According to the National Institute of Health, cyanogen chloride poisoning creates “mild effects” in humans at concentrations of 500-1,000 micrograms per liter. Beyond the concentration threshold of 2,500 micrograms per liter, it can cause “coma, convulsions, and death.” (Delightful—these are just the figures we’re looking for.)

As it turns out, the concentration of uric acid in pee is, to our calculation, about 112 times that of the uric acid concentration used in the experiment. If we could assume a proportional yield of cyanogen chloride just from using more uric acid, we could actually achieve toxic levels of cyanogen chloride for an Olympic pool of 10mg/L chlorinated water… for an equivalent quantity of urine. That means if each person is peeing 0.8L of the highly concentrated urine, their entire day’s yield, into this pool, you’d need about three million people peeing in that pool. If you could get at that pool without dying of either suffocation or drowning in other people’s urine, you could probably pull off death by cyanogen chloride poisoning or at least a pretty good coma.

3,000,000 people. Oh, and it gets better. More science:

However, there’s a problem. The researchers in the paper showed that for a concentration of 0.33 millimoles of chlorine per liter (about 15 mg/L), the dilute concentration of uric acid (5×10-5 moles per liter) eliminated all of the free chlorine. Hence, if we want chlorinated water that can actually turn all of the uric acid we’re peeing in it into cyanogen chloride, we need a more concentrated chlorinated solution.

If an approximately one-hundredth-strength-of-pee concentration of uric acid uses up 15mg/L chlorinated water, we need super chlorinated water-—on the order of 1500mg/L, or roughly half a liter of chlorine per liter of water.

In the end, we need a pool that is two parts water to one part chlorine and would probably burn the eyeballs out of your sockets and make your skin peel away from your bones (this calls for a pool boy who can only be criminally sadistic). If you and three million other people could get at this pool and unload your pee into it before your bodies melted, before the crowd crushed you to death, and before you drowned from the massive tidal wave of pee… yes, you could feasibly die of cyanogen chloride poisoning originating from chlorinated water and pee.

And that’s why, boys and girls, we don’t trust everything we read in the MSM.

‘The Folly of Blocking Natural Gas-Exports’


Robert Zubrin had a good piece in yesterday’s Washington Times arguing that U.S. interference with natural-gas markets “makes energy more expensive, not less.” An excerpt:

Like the makers of crops, airplanes and books, producers of natural gas create goods to meet the size of their available market. The larger the market, the more they can produce, and the more revenue they can obtain both to cover their fixed costs and invest in future development.

This is why, as the world’s population has gone up, nearly all goods have become cheaper and more plentiful, rather than the reverse. This is also why blockading another nation’s exports is generally considered to be a hostile act, rather than a form of economic assistance.

The federal government was created to defend the United States, not to wage war upon it. The Obama administration should lift its blockade of American natural-gas exports now.

The whole thing here.

The $100 Billion-Per-Year Omission from the IPCC


When the IPCC’s latest report was released yesterday, it basically came in three parts:, the “press kit,” the 44-page “Summary for Policymakers,” and the 2,500-plus-page “Final Draft.” 

And the IPCC left out a pretty major detail, a $100-billion-per-year detail, from the press package and their summary. From the New York Times:

The poorest people in the world, who have had virtually nothing to do with causing global warming, will be high on the list of victims as climatic disruptions intensify, the report said. It cited a World Bank estimate that poor countries need as much as $100 billion a year to try to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries.

The $100 billion figure, though included in the 2,500-page main report, was removed from a 48-page executive summary to be read by the world’s top political leaders. It was among the most significant changes made as the summary underwent final review during a dayslong editing session in Yokohama.

The edit came after several rich countries, including the United States, raised questions about the language, according to several people who were in the room at the time but did not wish to be identified because the negotiations are private.

The language is contentious because poor countries are expected to renew their demand for aid this September in New York at a summit meeting of world leaders, who will attempt to make headway on a new treaty to limit greenhouse gases.

Many rich countries argue that $100 billion a year is an unrealistic demand; it would essentially require them to double their budgets for foreign aid, at a time of economic distress at home. That argument has fed a rising sense of outrage among the leaders of poor countries, who feel their people are paying the price for decades of profligate Western consumption.

As I wrote yesterday, the summary specifically stated the importance of alleviating poverty around the globe, but never mentioned anything about how to do this or the amount needed. Now we know why: their science might be settled, but who pays and for what is not.

Total Recall: GM’s Chance for Rebirth


Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday, the CEO of America’s biggest auto company will apologize for her company’s negligence in pursuing a defective part that has been linked to the loss of 13 lives.  

“As soon as l learned about the problem, we acted without hesitation. Whatever mistakes were made in the past, we will not shirk from our responsibilities now and in the future,” Barra will say of the recall of 2.5 million vehicles with potentially faulty ignition switches, according to a copy of her written testimony released Monday. “That begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall. My management team and I . . . will hold ourselves fully accountable.”

Barra’a contrition is a jarring contrast to President Obama’s arrogant defense of his disastrous Affordable Care Act. America’s CEO lied about his product and has refused to recall it even as millions (including cancer patients) have suffered from the loss of their insurance and doctors. Calling for a full investigation by a U.S. attorney, Barra promises “we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers.” Obama refuses anything of the sort. Such are the expectations of our political leaders vs. our business leaders.

For all GM’s troubles, “Switchgate” — named for the faulty ignition switch that can inadvertently stall cars made between 2005–2011 — could ultimately benefit Barra and her company.

As the first female CEO of an American automaker, Barra will benefit from enormous political  goodwill. She is assisted by the fact that none of the cars effected are still in production. They are relics of an old GM — a pre-bankruptcy GM that was burdened by excessive labor costs, pension overhead, and poorly designed sedan products.

With the massive recall, Barra can help sever Old GM from New GM, putting in place safety systems (she has already announced a new veep for Global Vehicle Safety) that will assure that Switchgate won’t be repeated. Indeed, the ignition snafu is an anomaly in a company — and an industry — that is quick to recall unsafe products. For example, the 2005 Chrysler Pacifica – of similar vintage to Switchgate star, the Chevy Cobalt — also had a mysterious stalling problem. It was recalled within two years of launch.

Conspiracies will abound. Did GM bury Swtichgate because of pressure to keep a new vehicle launch on schedule? Did Chevy resist the recall expense because the company was in increasing financial straits?


But GM insiders say there likely is no smoking gun — that the Cobalt’s (and Pontiac Solstice, and Chevy HHR, etc.) ignition was considered by engineers to be a mechanical issue that never rose to the level of safety defect (thus, its part number was never changed even after the ignition was fixed sometime around 2007).

The deaths associated with the ignition had muddying factors — drivers were alcohol-impaired or youngsters driving in wet conditions — preventing easy connection of the dots. By the time the ignition was definitively linked to air-bag deployment — circa 2009 – the part had been repaired.

Critics — my NRO colleague Jim Geraghty among them — will rightly question whether Switchgate was further buried by a government-run bankruptcy (would NHTSA embarrass its own White House with a recall?). Fair enough. But the White House Auto Task Force was uninterested in liability — only in quickly restructuring the company’s balance sheet so that the UAW could survive and continue to feed the Democratic Party campaign cash. It was a UAW bailout, not an auto bailout.

In crisis there is opportunity, and GM has a chance to redeem itself under the hot glare of public attention. With the best products it has ever produced in showrooms now (new Corvette, new Malibu, new Tahoe, new Caddies, etc.), a new focus on customer service would do a lot of good.

Tags: GM , Obama , Obamacare , Chevy Cobalt

Taxpayers Funded a Climate-Change Musical


The National Science Federation spent $700,000 on this:

Call it Climate Change: The Musical! 

The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production, leaving some in Congress questioning if the organization’s grant funds could be put to better use. 

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a hearing last Thursday about the way the NSF is using taxpayer money — including on the grants for the play, a New York production called “The Great Immensity.” 

“I support basic research, which can lead to discoveries that change our world, expand our horizons and save lives,” Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, told “But NSF has funded too many questionable research grants. Spending taxpayer dollars to fund a climate change musical called ‘The Great Immensity’ sounds more like a waste of taxpayer dollars — money that could have funded higher priority research.” 

“All government employees and their agency heads need to remember they are accountable to the American taxpayer who pays their salary and funds their projects. It is not the government’s money; it is the people’s money,” he added. 

The play is being produced by New York-based activist theater group The Civilians with a grant award from 2010. According to a plot description on the theater company’s website, “The Great Immensity” focuses on a woman named Phyllis as she tries to track down a friend who disappeared while filming an assignment for a nature show on a tropical island. During her search, she also uncovers a devious plot surrounding an international climate summit in Auckland, New Zealand. 

So, what did we get for our money? Here’s one of the songs from the play:

What a waste.

About That New IPCC Report. . .


Via Power Line, here’s what Barbara Boxer had to say about the new IPCC report titled “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability​.” She can see global warming from her house:

“In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change’s impacts – from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires. This new IPCC report identifies the serious threats to human health, vital infrastructure, and the world’s economy that will multiply as temperatures warm. It confirms that we must cut carbon pollution now to avoid lasting changes to our planet.”

Well, if she looks out the window today all she’s going to see is cold and rain.

Anyway, what she and most everyone else are missing from the report is how much the report ties poverty to those who’ll be affected if their climate models come true. For example, this:

The most effective vulnerability reduction measures for health in the near-term are programs that 
implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and 
sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase 
capacity for disaster preparedness and response, and alleviate poverty (very high confidence). By 
2100 for the high-emission scenario RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity 
in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including 
growing food or working outdoors (high confidence).

And this. . .

Urban areas 

Many global risks of climate change are concentrated in urban areas (medium confidence). 
Steps that build resilience and enable sustainable development can accelerate successful 
climate-change adaptation globally. Heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland and coastal 
flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, and water scarcity pose risks in urban areas for 
people, assets, economies, and ecosystems (very high confidence). Risks are amplified for those 
lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in poor-quality housing and exposed areas. 
Reducing basic service deficits, improving housing, and building resilient infrastructure systems 
could significantly reduce vulnerability and exposure in urban areas. Urban adaptation benefits 
from effective multi-level urban risk governance, alignment of policies and incentives, 
strengthened local government and community adaptation capacity, synergies with the private 
sector, and appropriate financing and institutional development (medium confidence). Increased 
capacity, voice, and influence of low-income groups and vulnerable communities and their 
partnerships with local governments also benefit adaptation.

Rural areas

Major future rural impacts are expected in the near-term and beyond through impacts on 
water availability and supply, food security, and agricultural incomes, including shifts in 
production areas of food and non-food crops across the world (high confidence). These 
impacts are expected to disproportionately affect the welfare of the poor in rural areas, such as 
female-headed households and those with limited access to land, modern agricultural inputs, 
infrastructure, and education. Further adaptations for agriculture, water, forestry, and 
biodiversity can occur through policies taking account of rural decision-making contexts. Trade 
reform and investment can improve market access for small-scale farms (medium confidence).

The report is crystal clear and says that even in wealthy nations, it’s the poor who will be hurt the most:

Distribution of impacts: Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for 
disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Risks are 
already moderate because of regionally differentiated climate-change impacts on crop 
production in particular (medium to high confidence). Based on projected decreases in 
regional crop yields and water availability, risks of unevenly distributed impacts are high for 
additional warming above 2°C (medium confidence).

In summary, the IPCC says that we need reduce poverty to protect people from global warming. But saying you’re in favor of reducing poverty around the globe and actually implementing policies that will reduce poverty around the globe are not the same thing. To make the actual infrastructure improvements that the IPCC writes about will need one common input: cheap energy.

Environmentalists like Bjørn Lomborg​ and James Lovelock (and us) have been saying this for years now. The world needs more CO2 emissions, not fewer, as Sen. Boxer desires. Here’s Lomborg, for example, writing about the need for cheaper electricity:

​. . .a new analysis from the Center for Global Development finds that by investing $10 billion in renewable energy, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. Using gas electrification instead would be more than four times as efficient. By insisting on renewables, we deliberately choose to leave 60 million people in darkness and poverty. This seems hypocritical, as the rich world gets just 0.8% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, which remain unreliable. Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2035, we will produce just 2.6% of our energy from wind and under 1% from solar.

And here’s a recent Guardian piece on Lovelock’s views:

Environmentalism has “become a religion” and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock.

The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that “it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms.

Sen. Boxer, the IPCC, the UN, and the other energy-deniers just don’t get it. The way best way to mitigate the affects of their global warming is with more nuclear, natural gas, and coal-fired power-plants. To say otherwise locks billions in poverty. 


Subscribe to National Review