Tag: climate action plan

The World Needs More Energy, Not Less

This week, a few major media outlets covered my take on the effectiveness and judiciousness of President Obama’s call, at the U.N. Climate Summit, for all countries of the world to make pledges of how and how much they are going to reduce their national carbon dioxide emissions. It should be no surprise that I think such actions would be ineffective and imprudent.

My biggest criticism is that not all countries of the world are at the same stage of energy development. While the developed nations may have all the energy supplies they want and need, most developing countries do not. So, while developing countries pursue  “luxuries” like indoor lighting and clean cooking facilities (not to mention improved sanitation), developed countries are awash in the luxury of debating whether to alter the relative components of their fuel mix in hopes that it may (or may not) alter the future course of the climate.

Since historically (and today) there is an extremely tight coupling between energy production and carbon dioxide emissions (since fossil fuels are used to produce the overwhelming bulk of our energy), calls like those from President Obama to restrict carbon dioxide emissions are akin to calls to restrict energy usage and expansion.

Imposing carbon restrictions on developing nations would have large-scale negative implications, not only to those directly affected, but to the world as a whole, as a large expanse of human ingenuity–arguably humanity’s greatest resource–would remain constrained by basic survival efforts and 50-year life expectancies.

Basically, no one is going to go along with this. So despite promises, when adhering to plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (whether informal or formalized in a treaty) comes up against economic expansion and human welfare improvements, the latter are going to win out every time (or so we would hope).

The Collection of Evidence for a Low Climate Sensitivity Continues to Grow

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Nic Lewis and Judith Curry just published a blockbuster paper that pegs the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average surface temperature is expected to rise in association with a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration—at 1.64°C (1.05°C to 4.05°C, 90% range), a value that is nearly half of the number underpinning all of President Obama’s executive actions under his Climate Action Plan.

This finding will not stop the President and the EPA from imposing more limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels. A wealth of similar findings have appeared in the scientific literature beginning in 2011 (see below) and they, too, have failed to dissuade him from his legacy mission.

The publication of the Lewis and Curry paper, along with another by Ragnhild Skeie and colleagues, brings the number of recent low-sensitivity climate publications to 14, by 42 authors from around the world (this doesn’t count our 2002 paper on the topic, “Revised 21st Century Temperature Projections”).  Most of these sensitivities are a good 40% below the average climate sensitivity of the models used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Lewis and Curry arrive at their lower equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate by using updated compilations of the earth’s observed temperature change, oceanic heat uptake, and the magnitude of human emissions, some of which should cause warming (e.g., greenhouse gases), while the others should cool (e.g., sulfate aerosols). They try to factor out “natural variability.” By comparing values of these parameters from the mid-19 century to now, they can estimate how much the earth warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions.

The estimate is not perfect, as there are plenty of uncertainties, some of which may never be completely resolved. But, nevertheless, Lewis and Curry have generated  a very robust observation-based estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

For those interested in the technical details, and a much more thorough description of the research, author Nic Lewis takes you through the paper (here) has made a pre-print copy of the paper freely available (here).

In the chart below, we’ve added the primary findings of Lewis and Curry as well as those of Skeie et al. to the collection of 12 other low-sensitivity papers published since 2010 that conclude that the best estimate for the earth’s climate sensitivity lies below the IPCC estimates. We’ve also included in our Figure both the IPCC’s  subjective and model-based characteristics of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. For those wondering, there are very few recent papers arguing that the IPCC estimates are too low, and they all have to contend with the fact that, according to new Cato scholar Ross McKitrick, “the pause” in warming is actually 19 years in length. 

Should the U.S. Take the Lead on Climate Change Policies?

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

—————–

With its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. But to meet the Supremes’ criteria for regulation, EPA first had to find that the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were an “endangerment” to public health and welfare. While the sitting Bush administration was reluctant to do this, President Obama’s EPA made the “preliminary” finding of endangerment a mere 94 days after his inauguration.

The “final” Endangerment Finding came on December 7, 2009, just in time to provide the United States credibility at the then-starting Copenhagen Conference, a United Nations affair at which a replacement to the failed Kyoto Protocol was to be enshrined. The meeting was the most disastrous yet for global warming hawks, but President Obama quickly declared victory and rushed off on Air Force-1, in order to beat what was to be the first of three bona fide blizzards in Washington that winter. He lost that race, too.

A torrent of regulations followed, “culminating” in EPA’s recent proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric power plants. That controversial proposal, announced in early June, followed on the heels of EPA’s January proposal of regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants.

If adopted (and they will be), these proposed regulations will be the biggest diktats yet originating from Obama’s Climate Action Plan. Administration officials are already celebrating the salvation of mankind, even before the regulations are finalized.

The administration is holding “hearings” around the country so it can take your input to improve these already near-perfect rules. To help guide us, the White House just released a new report describing how the costs of climate change will skyrocket the longer we delay taking action to stop it.

According to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the collection of administration actions on climate change is “changing the tone” in talks with foreign nations. No doubt encouraged by this “changing tone,” President Obama is scheduled to attend a UN climate “summit” in New York this September.

To what end? What benefit will “taking the lead” on climate change actually provide the United States?

Fuel Efficiency Standards for New Trucks—Can’t We Decide These for Ourselves?

Rather than wait on the market to demand more fuel efficient trucks, President Obama, bypassing Congress, has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to draw up a new round of regulations raising the fuel efficiency standards on heavy-duty trucks. He promises that this will save billions of dollars in fuel costs, lower prices and reduce greenhouse gas emissions—or, as he describes it, a “win-win-win” situation.

Thank you, Mr. President for taking such good care of us.

Apparently, we are too stupid to have realized the manifold benefits of this chain of events ourselves.

Or is it that we realize these actions will have no impact of climate change and will probably result in higher prices for new trucks and everything that they transport?

You can use our “Handy-Dandy Temperature Change Calculator” to see that, using the EPA’s own computer model, if Americans cut all of our carbon dioxide emissions to zero, today, the amount of warming that would be prevented (assuming a warming forecast that is itself probably too high) by 2100 is around two-tenths of a degree—an amount that would be virtually impossible to measure against natural climate variability.  Increasing the fuel efficiency of heavy trucks would have considerably less of an effect than cutting all carbon dioxide emissions and would simply not be discernible in climate data.

And the President’s claim that increasing the fuel efficiency will lower the price of all things neglects the fact that we simply do not know what technology would accomplish this end.

Perhaps he should have said—”if you like your truck, you can keep your truck,” that is, until you have to replace it with something that will cost much more than you would have otherwise purchased and not do what it is supposed to do.

Again, thank you, Mr. President.

Victory for Cato: Feds Now Seeking Input on the Social Cost of Carbon

It’s about time!

For months, we have been hammering away at the point that the Feds’ current determination of the social cost of carbon is grossly out of touch with the relevant scientific literature and economic guidance.

Perhaps in response to the fact that they can’t argue against what we have been saying, the Administration has finally capitulated and is opening up their determination of the social cost of carbon (SCC) for public comment.

Their SCC calculation—in keeping with the playbook of the president’s Climate Action Plan—is a backdoor way of implementing a carbon tax. And it is slowly, pervasively, and worse of all, silently, creeping into all of our lives.  We’ve been trying to stop all of this by, at the very least, pulling back the cloak of secrecy and trying to make this once-esoteric  subject a topic of dinnertime conversation.

Meanwhile,  the government’s regulatory push using the SCC continues.

The Institute for Energy Research has recently identified nearly 30 federal regulations which have incorporated the SCC into their cost benefit analysis (and several more have been recently announced).

The SCC is used to make regulations seem less costly.  We say “seem,” because the “benefit” from reducing carbon dioxide (CO2)  emissions, as valued by the SCC, is likely never to be realized by the American consumer—yet the other costs (such as increased manufacturing costs) most assuredly will be.

The SCC is a theoretical cost of each additional CO2 emission. But the theory is so loosey-goosey that with a little creativity, you can arrive at pretty much any value for  the SCC—a point noted by M.I.T.’s Robert Pindyck in an article for the Summer 2013 edition of Cato’s Regulation.

As the Obama Administration wants to regulate away as many carbon dioxide emissions as possible, it is in its own self-interest to try to arrive at the highest SCC value possible.  This way, the more that CO2 emissions are reduced, the more money is “saved.”

Or so the idea goes.

But their path towards a high SCC is one away from both the best science and the most common-sense economics.

We imagine that readers of this blog probably are well-aware of the details behind this reality, as we have laid them out on many occasions,  so we won’t go into them again here.

Instead, we want to point out several opportunities to draw further attention to the short-comings in the Administration’s SCC determination.

The period for accepting public comments on several proposed rulemakings is open, and provides a good opportunity to remind the issuing agency what they did wrong. For example, here is a recently-announced regulation proposal from the Department of Energy (DoE) which seeks to impose higher energy efficiency rules for residential furnace fans. It employs the SCC to make this rule seem a lot sweeter than it actually is.

We have already submitted comments on several of these proposed regulations, including DoE regulations to increase the efficiency standards for Microwave Ovens, Walk-In Freezers, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment.

So, it’s important that  the White House’s  Office of Management and Budget (OBM)  just announced that the social cost of carbon determination currently in force will be open to public comment starting sometime in the presumably near future (keep an eye on the Federal Register for the official announcement).

While it is too early to tell, this willingness to hear public comments on the SCC probably originated from the comments received on the Petition to Reconsider the proposed Microwave Oven ruling—the first rulemaking to incorporate the Administration’s latest-worst iteration of the SCC (which was about a 50% increase over its original figure). There hasn’t been an official announcement as to the result of Petition, but the scientific argument against it is a Cato product.

More than likely, though, this will all be for show.  The feds could selectively use some comments and  somehow find a way to raise the SCC even further.  Like we said, that’s easy to do—crank down the discount rate, or  crank up the damage function (make-up new damages not included in the current models)—even while paying lip service to the lowered equilibrium climate sensitivity and the CO2 fertilization effect.

We’d be more than happy to be wrong about this. But until then, our efforts to set things straight will continue.

EPA Intervention Where None Is Needed

Falling back on tired scare tactics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy today announced carbon dioxide emissions limits for new power plants as part of the President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. From McCarthy:

The overwhelming judgment of science tells us that climate change is real, human activities are fueling that change, and we must take action to avoid the most devastating consequences. We know this is not just about melting glaciers. Climate change—caused by carbon pollution—is one of the most significant public health threats of our time. That’s why E.P.A. has been called to action. And that’s why today’s action is so important for us to talk about.

I humbly disagree both as to the “public health threat” of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, as well as with the idea that the EPA can do anything to alleviate whatever climate change may result.

What the new emissions limits do is to basically force the administration’s preference for natural gas over coal as the fossil fuel source for our nation’s electricity production going forward, perpetuating the administration’s seeming “War on Coal.” It does this by setting the carbon dioxide emissions limits for new power plants such that they are impossible to meet by burning coal, but can be met readily by burning natural gas. The reason for this is simple chemistry: the act of burning coal releases nearly twice the amount of carbon dioxide as does burning natural gas per unit of energy released.

The funny thing is, the market was already moving in that direction. Cheap natural gas is displacing coal for generating electricity, which in turn is reducing our national carbon dioxide emissions.

An Unhappy Birthday: Keystone XL Application Turns 5

It has now been five years since TransCanada made its first permit application to the U.S. State Department to build the Keystone XL. Under the permit, the firm would construct a cross-border pipeline to carry about 830,000 barrels of Canada-produced oil per day down to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Most of that oil would be mined from the tar sands of Alberta.

No decision has been reached on the current permit application—or rather, no decision has been announced. It’s fate is still guarded by the State Department and President Obama.

In 2009, the U.S. permit for a similar pipeline, Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper, was issued just over two years after the initial application. Then (just four years ago), the State Department spoke in glowing terms of the project, praising it for advancing “strategic interests” and being a “positive economic signal” and further adding that “reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies.” Here is a taste of the State Department’s press release announcing the pipeline’s approval:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

The National Interest Determination took many factors into account, including greenhouse gas emissions. The administration believes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies and a strong international agreement.

Oh how times have changed. 

Well, actually, no.