News for anyone interested in Global Warming.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I quote: "So the question is...Do we completely disolve our existing societies and make sure that at least 5/6ths of the world population dies out or do we ignore the irrational panic mongering that is going on and continue to improve our technologies as almost every western nation is doing while maintaing the best quality of life for every one (in the west) that is the highest in the known history of the planet? I vote for option #2....see my post above about the 1970's and the Enonut horror stories we had to grow up with." Howsabout we just slow a exponential/geometric rate of growth a little bit? Note that exponential growth here refers not just to Population (world's single biggest enviro problem - but that's another post), but also to resource usage per capita, and consequently GHG output per capita and en toto. Ok as I have said and posted statistics on before many times. The western countries have no population growth problem. Go talk to the people in the third world, asia and other developing nations (but not china..they have managed their growth) There is no reaosn to shcakle our industry either, the resources we consume go back into feeding the world (to a large extent) sending relife to developing nations foreign aid and yes our own economy too. There is also no reason not to pursue cleaner, more efficient power sources, fuels, and manufacturing processes. If you dig into some of the more balanced research on environment and not just the radical eco-inclined and on the things we as a nation (the USA here though others are doing their part) are working on, wether government run or privately funded, we are doing quite a bit to improve our environment. In southern California alone there are no less than a dozen different companies working on solar energy solutions not to mention how many there are across the rest of the nation. George Bush is also pushing for a multi-billion dollar budget to jumpstart oour fusion research programs too...now if congress will just act... As for concerns regarding the simple *buying* of clean air by rich countries, I have a few commments. Some articles, such as Article XII, of Kyoto that provide what the U.S. delegation championed and ram-rodded (exactly how did they "ramrod" this? Sounds like an incendiary statement rather than a cool collected assessment) through committee in a 4 a.m. session the last night of Kyoto, the so-called FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS, allow countries that get below their targeted output of GHG to SELL the "clean air" they created to countries like the U.S. who would rather buy credits and keep polluting. As the U.S. delegation argued, however, this is the structure of the Clean Air Act which has worked amazingly well. (Note I would point out it's not *that* similar and the CAA is working all *that* well at this point, but that's a rather boring legal discussion.) That was the previous administration and unfortunately that administration had some dubious motivations. The science behind Kyoto is bad science, theories with partial models with no real accounting for real world variables. Others on here have posted about the inadaquacies of the science and there are plenty of published works that indicate that man is not the boogieman when it comes to weather cycles. Aside from that, Kyoto would require that we wreck our economy and then who would feed the starving billions accross the globe? On another tack, a Public apology for loosing my temper in my previous entry to you. I do tend to be touchy on some subjects. Moreover, because Kyoto did not provide limitations on the poorer/developing world, they cannot get *below* their targeted emission (they have NO target, you see). Thus, it is only those countries that are developed, large polluters who will be SELLING credits. Now there are other FlexMechs that would apply to the poorer countries, such as credit for technology transfers, etc. The reason Kyoto was set up this way is the basic assumption (as the US argued) that a ton of clean air is as good in one spot of the world as in any other, as climate is holostic. Moreover, a ton of clean air costs less in some countries, because what we consider 20-year-old cleaning technology is *new* there. So, given X dollars in the pot, why not go where you can by the most clean air for your money? As you can see, even though Kyoto is a framework document as to how the system will function, changing the system to force limitations on developing countries will result in the need to re-write the whole thing. That would be good for the U.S., because the longer it is before anything is done, the less money it costs the big polluters now. I liken it to the big belching chemical plant that wants to simply tie up the bill in committee until it's forgotten. When we think of this climate change crap, we picture the butterfly-people all unwashed and high on idealism chanting outside the UN meeting house. Well, guess what, folks, Exxon is *inside* the UN meeting house, along with all the other big dirties, having daily meetings with various delegations. I must say, though, that the industry leaders always have the best free food at the climate change conferences. Last time I checked, people at Exxon have to breathe the same air, and drink the same water as everyone else. Just because they are against a policy that would destroy our economy and cause long term problems globally does not mean that they want to breathe dirtyier air or drink polluted water. Exxon makes billions off of Oil yes, so do others, BUT they also spend more than most governments on trying to find cleaner more efficient solutions...you see the more efficient their processes the bigger their profit margins. Also Exxon and every other NON-American oil industry is there to, don't just hang this on the US while were at it. Again, Kyoto is based on science that is not good science. They have partial theories and inadaquate models. So when people "fudge" the data to get their point accross their point is invalid. There are plenty of scientists who have admitted to the inadaquacies in the science behind Kyoto, but they say that doesnt matter. Because it is better to be safe than sorry....unless you end up making things worse by restricting the major contributor of the funding for reasearch, namely the industrielized nations. Cripple their economies and you cause ripple effects accross the globe. Kyoto is bad. (just my opinion though)

[ 09-16-2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

For those of you actually interested in hearing some from both sides of the argument, I reccomend this book. I consider it a bit to the right, but since most of the stuff in the main stream is way to the left, I think it makes a good balance.

The Satanic Gasses
Clearing the air about Global Warming.

By: Patrick J. Michaels and Rober C. Balling Jr.

Endorsed by: Frederick Seitz, past president of the national Academy of Science.

ISBN: 9 781882577927

Just in case you think I am just makin this stuff up as I go along.

[ 09-16-2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Magik, your apology is accepted, but it was not needed.

As for which administration approved Kyoto, it matters not for this discussion. The USA's interests as compared to other countries doesn't really change that much from president to president: those of us inside the USA see it as more different than it is. No matter the president, when we enter into ANY negotiation with other nations, we want our businesses and people to benefit - that gets any president re-elected.

Proof of global warming: I have to send you to others to convince you - I am only a hack when it comes to science, I'm not a real pro. I encourage you the check out the PEW Center for Climate Change website. PEW is run by Eileen Claussen, who was at the State Dept. for years. It's really middle-of-the-road, and is the organization that got Shell, BP, etc. to agree to voluntary emission reductions. Ms. Claussen has told me, regarding her approach as "the middleman," that she needs the Sierra Club left and the OPEC right to help her stay where she is and get real things done in positive ways. If you like, I once compiled a list of websites, some liberal some conservative, to give to my students to educate themselves on climate change - I could dig it out and send it to you. IMHO, there is scientific evidence that supports a theory that we COULD change the climate, and also proof that some types of changes could be irreparable - and that, I think, should be enough to trigger the Precautionary Principle that is so common-sensical (not a word - I know).

Economy: this seems to be your biggest concern. It shouldn't.

First, On the one hand, history has time-and-again proven that the industry can well-handle any increase in costs. Shrimpers screamed bloody murder and blocked ports in the south when they were forced to put Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on their trawlers, saying they would all go under. A few years later, and we see no economic impact. Same with all the "big dirty" power plants targeted under the Clean Air Act and the CAA 1990 Amendments. Ditto for waste haulers and storers and the Resource COnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Second, I again reiterate the Polluter Pays principle. Now, with GHGs I admit it may or may not be "pollution" and that there is debate as to how harmful it is, but I want to use a pollution analogy here. If you make my air dirty, i.e. take my clean air, and then use it to make a product you sell, without paying me for what you took - then you have been the beneficiary of a windfall. Quite simply, a business should pay for what it uses (i.e. resources) to make its product, otherwise its "profit" really is stolen from others. I'm a hard-core economic realist - I want real-cost accounting. But, I want to account for all the costs of doing business. If you cannot pay for the resources you use and still make a profit off of the product, then you are inefficient and need to shut your doors.

Third, there are large piles of money to be made in clean air. Seatbelt laws have created businesses that thrive making a product (seatbelts) to sell - and jobs are created. We and other countries had to spend money on National Defense - which is an economic externality just like environmental protection - but that necessity led to some of the most successful companies (and researchers I might add) in American history (cite: McDonald-Douglas, BMW [did you know they began a German airplane makers?], Mercedes-Benz). Who do you think will be at the forefront of development if/when climate-friendly products increase in demand - that's right, the developed countries' folks - our good ole US engineers. If you don't buy this line of reasoning, why don't you check the Chicago Board of Trade where Kyoto climate change credits have been listed as a futures commodity for years. And, believe me, that will really open your eyes to the increasing value of clean air. You really think China is going to make its clean coal plants? It already has projects where the US is helping build them. And even though there's an expense up front, guess who's collecting the money on the back end? There is a reason that the US is supporting over 35 joint climate change projects worldwide - and that reason is the boat-load of bucks to be made.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Magik, your apology is accepted, but it was not needed. As for which administration approved Kyoto, it matters not for this discussion. The USA's interests as compared to other countries doesn't really change that much from president to president: those of us inside the USA see it as more different than it is. No matter the president, when we enter into ANY negotiation with other nations, we want our businesses and people to benefit - that gets any president re-elected. Ok point conceeded [img]smile.gif[/img] Proof of global warming: I have to send you to others to convince you - I am only a hack when it comes to science, I'm not a real pro. I encourage you the check out the PEW Center for Climate Change website. PEW is run by Eileen Claussen, who was at the State Dept. for years. It's really middle-of-the-road, and is the organization that got Shell, BP, etc. to agree to voluntary emission reductions. Ms. Claussen has told me, regarding her approach as "the middleman," that she needs the Sierra Club left and the OPEC right to help her stay where she is and get real things done in positive ways. If you like, I once compiled a list of websites, some liberal some conservative, to give to my students to educate themselves on climate change - I could dig it out and send it to you. IMHO, there is scientific evidence that supports a theory that we COULD change the climate, and also proof that some types of changes could be irreparable - and that, I think, should be enough to trigger the Precautionary Principle that is so common-sensical (not a word - I know). Im not a pro either...at least not at weather scince (but I play one on Iron Works) But I do know a few, and have worked on a couple of contracts involving the hardware used to model weather. I have actually heard of PEW and I always laugh at the acronym, but will check it out again [img]smile.gif[/img] I am all for comon sense approaches to cleaning our act up, wether it impacts the environment or not, I hate waste and detest inefficiency (must be the german in me) I believe our government's job is to find ways to encourage industry to do what they are already doing in the way of increasing efficiency and cleaning up process and to make sure such things as illegal dumping and such do not take place. I have read thru the Kyoto Protocols and will honestly tell you ...to me it looks like just so much legalese, I have relied on others to interpret it for me, people I trust. so won't argue details of the exact wording or meaning. All I know for sure, if enacted it would probably decimate our economy...especially right now. I will point out that on a positive spin, current research and theory has us over due for a dramatic climate shift into an ice age so maybe whatever agency that is keeping us warm, may be a good thing. I could go on about deep oceanic currents and melting polar ice caps and ice cores taken in antarctica and many other things I have posted before, but its all out there for you to find to. Economy: this seems to be your biggest concern. It shouldn't. First, On the one hand, history has time-and-again proven that the industry can well-handle any increase in costs. Shrimpers screamed bloody murder and blocked ports in the south when they were forced to put Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on their trawlers, saying they would all go under. A few years later, and we see no economic impact. Same with all the "big dirty" power plants targeted under the Clean Air Act and the CAA 1990 Amendments. Ditto for waste haulers and storers and the Resource COnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). have you looked at our economy lately? Since the year 2000 we have been in one of the worst economic recessions in our history. It aint a pretty picture. Now I realize corporate misdeeds are partly to blame but there are plenty of businesses that are going under that did nothing wrong. We are not out of our economic doldrums yet. Even the democrat type financial advisers are labeling it an unusual bear market. Second, I again reiterate the Polluter Pays principle. Now, with GHGs I admit it may or may not be "pollution" and that there is debate as to how harmful it is, but I want to use a pollution analogy here. If you make my air dirty, i.e. take my clean air, and then use it to make a product you sell, without paying me for what you took - then you have been the beneficiary of a windfall. Quite simply, a business should pay for what it uses (i.e. resources) to make its product, otherwise its "profit" really is stolen from others. I'm a hard-core economic realist - I want real-cost accounting. But, I want to account for all the costs of doing business. If you cannot pay for the resources you use and still make a profit off of the product, then you are inefficient and need to shut your doors. In this model you forget the fact that our industry produces more with less than most the rest of the world, the materials we use and waste it produces still does more good globally than harm (in my opinion) There are literally millions or hundreds of millions that would starve or die from disease were it not for the US and other generous western nations. Im not sure about China (maybe KT could answer that) But there aren't any nations in Asia sending out billions in aid to the middle east, Africa or south america. Aid meaning, food, clothing, medicine, shelter, education, and technology not just moeny, and all of those things require a large production base to allow us to sustain that aid. Third, there are large piles of money to be made in clean air. Seatbelt laws have created businesses that thrive making a product (seatbelts) to sell - and jobs are created. We and other countries had to spend money on National Defense - which is an economic externality just like environmental protection - but that necessity led to some of the most successful companies (and researchers I might add) in American history (cite: McDonald-Douglas, BMW [did you know they began a German airplane makers?], Mercedes-Benz). Who do you think will be at the forefront of development if/when climate-friendly products increase in demand - that's right, the developed countries' folks - our good ole US engineers. If you don't buy this line of reasoning, why don't you check the Chicago Board of Trade where Kyoto climate change credits have been listed as a futures commodity for years. And, believe me, that will really open your eyes to the increasing value of clean air. You really think China is going to make its clean coal plants? It already has projects where the US is helping build them. And even though there's an expense up front, guess who's collecting the money on the back end? There is a reason that the US is supporting over 35 joint climate change projects worldwide - and that reason is the boat-load of bucks to be made. The US has had projects running for decades to clean up the air, water and land. We have had environmental policies for ages. Our programs are working and have been for the thirty years that I can recall seeing the clean ups. Kyoto would have completely blown us away I am convinced and so are our leaders apparently. As for us poluting the "worlds" atmosphere...I direct your attention to the recent gigantic dust/polution cloud that recently swept across China and into the western Pacific...that didn't come from us dude. I still believe that Kyoto was bad for the US and bad for every western nation but I will check out PEW [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, quite technically, Kyoto isn't bad for any nation until the prescribe number of nations ratify it to make it law (which, for Kyoto, is both a flat # of nations as well as a threshold % of GHG emissions). And, if Kyoto goes through without US ratifications that means it will apply to everyone who signs on BUT NOT the US. That's how international law works - except for the customary law of nations (those things so old and ingrained we assume every nation must follow them) a nation is only bound by what it agrees to be bound by. In fact, many many nations fear an in-force Kyoto treaty that the US has not ratified - as it leaves the biggest do-badder (on the GHG issue) out running amuck amuck amuck amuck. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

As for the current state of the economy, it is not relevant to our discussion of how environmental laws impact the economy. There have been no real environmental laws enacted since the early 1990s, when the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Superfund Amendement and Reauthorization Act (also called the "superfund attorney's retirement act" by those of us in the biz) came down. Moreover, environmental laws have consistently been less-and-less prosecuted since the early 1990s, and now are at a standstill. It's called "power of the pocketbook." Believe me, no matter how stringent the EPA's mandate is to clean up the environment, when the administration and congress pull the $$$, nothing gets done. And, since this administration came in (please this is not a slam on anyone and I just want to state a fact), the EPA's budget has gone down. As proof, the NYTimes just last week reported that the EPA was whinning because it didn't have the $$ to pursue superfund cases.

I think that you and I would agree the science of climate change is rather sketch at best - with that leading us to possibly different conclusions as to a course of action. So, while I think that while PEW is quite interesting, you might do yourself a better favor by checking into the economic impact of enviro laws. It's a tough topic to research, but it's also one that just might surprise you.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, quite technically, Kyoto isn't bad for any nation until the prescribe number of nations ratify it to make it law (which, for Kyoto, is both a flat # of nations as well as a threshold % of GHG emissions). And, if Kyoto goes through without US ratifications that means it will apply to everyone who signs on BUT NOT the US. That's how international law works - except for the customary law of nations (those things so old and ingrained we assume every nation must follow them) a nation is only bound by what it agrees to be bound by. In fact, many many nations fear an in-force Kyoto treaty that the US has not ratified - as it leaves the biggest do-badder (on the GHG issue) out running amuck amuck amuck amuck. [img]tongue.gif[/img] For some reason I can hear Fozzy Bear going wakka wakka wakka [img]smile.gif[/img] Quite the dichotomy that the USA is in one swell foop the biggest do badder and the biggest do gooder all in one roll [img]smile.gif[/img] As for the current state of the economy, it is not relevant to our discussion of how environmental laws impact the economy. There have been no real environmental laws enacted since the early 1990s, when the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Superfund Amendement and Reauthorization Act (also called the "superfund attorney's retirement act" by those of us in the biz) came down. Moreover, environmental laws have consistently been less-and-less prosecuted since the early 1990s, and now are at a standstill. It's called "power of the pocketbook." Believe me, no matter how stringent the EPA's mandate is to clean up the environment, when the administration and congress pull the $$$, nothing gets done. And, since this administration came in (please this is not a slam on anyone and I just want to state a fact), the EPA's budget has gone down. As proof, the NYTimes just last week reported that the EPA was whinning because it didn't have the $$ to pursue superfund cases. Actually since Kyoto was a current issue, then I disagree with you that our current economy isn't an issue. As for ploicys enacted since 1990 you are wrong, I don't have the docs available but I do know Clinton passed sever environmentally friendly presidential orders (circumventing congress by the way) Not to mention the recent short sighted ANWAR vote. To say that the country is not doing anything for the envrionment is misleading and disengenuous. I will also point out that seeing as how this is a capitalistic society you cannot just confine your comments about the environment to the government, there are litterally hundreds of private organizations working on technology for cleaner safer products and others also activly cleaning up previous problems. As you yourself pointed out, there are $$$$$ to be made in the "cleaning up" business and there are companies that are making the $$$$. I think that you and I would agree the science of climate change is rather sketch at best - with that leading us to possibly different conclusions as to a course of action. So, while I think that while PEW is quite interesting, you might do yourself a better favor by checking into the economic impact of enviro laws. It's a tough topic to research, but it's also one that just might surprise you. Perhaps and perhaps not. I would never challenge that we need to continue to clean oour act up, Im all for that. In the real world of everyday living though, nothing happens over night, there are more rational ways of proceeding than what I have been seeing bandied about on the boob tube and in the papers. I do know that environmental concerns do COST big time, I see it any time we want to expand our facilities or grow the business. I have also seen the lengths that some companies go to, in making the sites they use better than they were before they started useing them. [img]smile.gif[/img] We agree on some things and disagree on others [img]smile.gif[/img] but thats cool.

[Timber Loftis]

Magic said:
As for ploicys enacted since 1990 you are wrong, I don't have the docs available but I do know Clinton passed sever environmentally friendly presidential orders (circumventing congress by the way) Not to mention the recent short sighted ANWAR vote. To say that the country is not doing anything for the envrionment is misleading and disengenuous. I will also point out that seeing as how this is a capitalistic society you cannot just confine your comments about the environment to the government, there are litterally hundreds of private organizations working on technology for cleaner safer products and others also activly cleaning up previous problems. As you yourself pointed out, there are $$$$$ to be made in the "cleaning up" business and there are companies that are making the $$$$.

Actually, Clinton's orders were not, as a rule, circumventing Congress, as more than anything they were orders as to how certain Agencies (which are in the Executive branch, controlled by the Pres.) would interpret the statutes that governed their behavior. It does not circumvent congress for the Pres. to order the EPA to read the Clean Air Act mandates in one certain way or another, as the EPA could have made that determination on its own and the Pres. is, quite literally, its boss/manager. Forgive me for speaking generally, but Clinton's orders were more to the tune of "now you will enforce this way rather than how you have been." Believe me, the language of most environmental laws is broad enough that the Executive Branch doesn't need a new law to decide it will undertake new actions under existing laws. As an interesting side note on this topic, the EPA could, on its own, declare the GHGs (CO2 and the five others listed in Kyoto) as "pollutants" under the existing Clean Air Act and begin regulating them tomorrow if it took a notion to do so. In fact, to combat this possibility, bills have been introduced in Congress trying to get it enacted into law that CO2 is not a "pollutant."

As for the people making the $$$ in the cleanup business, the companies I usually represent won't spend the $$$ and hire them unless they know: (1) a law or regulation exists that (more or less) makes them undertake the activity, and (2) that law or regulation is actually being enforced.

As for the country doing things about the environment, I do not mean to say nothing is being done. I do mean to imply that a lot less is being done now than in the heyday of environmental law (1970s-1990). I could be specific if you like, but it would be exhausting to my time. In brief, I will say that, regarding the big US Enviro laws and concerns:
1. The CLean Water Act, after much ado about dredge and fill and how for the government could regulate, suffered some bad court defeats in the past couple of years, limiting what waters the act applied to and creating certain exemptions that are very big.
2. While the US was very active in climate change early on, that has dwindled significantly. US was a huge participant in drafting the UN Framework Convention on CLimate Change (UNFCCC) and then the Kyoto Protocol that further defined the UNFCCC at the third annual UNFCCC meeting in 1997. Since then, we've poo-pooed it pretty much.
3. The Clean Air Act is really off-schedule, and it has been in the news a lot lately that the EPA is not keeping up with the findings mandated in the CAA regarding study and classification of pollutants. On the other hand, there has been a lot of work at USEPA to regulate a new pollutant, fine particulate matter of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which we just discovered this decade is a worse pollutant than those you can see (and is why what we though were "cleaner" technologies, such as natural gas plants, can also pose significant health hazards). PM2.5 3-year studies are due to be finished this year.
4. CERCLA has pretty much ended. Attorneys jumped to litigate the 100 million dollar cleanup sites, as no matter which side of the case you are on you can bill the shit out of your client. Now, though, cleanup sites worth more than 20 million are hard to come by, and really not much to waste our time litigating - not for 5 yrs like the other sites, at least. Best to settle these and sweep em under the rug.
5. The Endangered Species Act was given such wicked teeth in early litigation (e.g. Sierra Club v. TVA - stopping the completion of a multi-billion dollar dam that was 90% finished because the rare snail darter fish was found at the bottom) based on the ESA's strong language regarding how important a species is, that subsequent courts have reacted harshly, severely limiting its use now.
6. Citizen suit provisions are harder to pursue these days because of limits the courts have put on them. And, just so you know, an individual has NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION under an environmental law unless Congress puts one in it. Generally, we must wait for the government to pursue environmental actions. There are exceptions, such as the citizen suit provision of the ESA, but they are rather rare. Otherwise, citizens are left trying to sue the agency to make it enforce its own regulations and laws - a difficult battle to win.

There are other examples I have in my pocket if you like.

This affects me personally, as I do environmental law. Trust me, the market for my work has tanked in the last decade. And, I claim no side in these matters: I have worked on both sides of environmental issues. But, with lack of enforcement, no matter which side I'm on demand for my services goes down.

OK - I've rambled for too long, now.

[Neb]

I say that Global Warming caused by humans is quite possible. But it's also possible that it's not happening. So in order to avoid screwing things up for ourselves if it IS happening, we should do some of the things that would prevent if happening if we were the cause. As far as I know a good deal of those things also lower pollution, yes? So even if it didn't help stop Global Warming we'd at least pollute less.

[Hexa]

Simple things is that it has become a bilion dollars industry providing thousands of people with jobs. It has just become commercial.

And yes people ain't responsible for global warming!@

[Timber Loftis]

This hasn't been posted on for a while but I just saw the season premiere of West Wing last night and it was discussed. In telling the industry reps why he would not budge on global warming he said 2 things that interested me:
1. It's stupid for a nation of SUVs to tell a nation of bicycles it's got to decrease it's greenhouse gas emissions.
2. I don't care if you don't support it, we caused this mess and we're gonna clean it up.

How un-American is that? Hollywood is so great about romanticizing our leaders. No president would *ever* openly tell any industry leader he was going against the industry on such a large issue. It's so true that when an industry leader approaches a politician on issues (including this one), there is absolutely NO discussion of what is right - he simply brings a clear to-the-penny calculation of what it will cost his company. And, boy, can they get precise. And, boy, can they screw you by taking away your campaign funding.

Anyway - just something I was thinking about as I was driving past the buses, "L" trains, and bicycles while on my way to work in my SUV.