Mr. Krupp knows US CO2 has dropped steadily since 2006 and is going lower. CO2 is no longer an issue in the US. Krupp has 2 choices: either US temperatures therefore are not rising, or CO2 has nothing to do with temperatures after all. If it's about political parties, it was a Republican George Bush the First who enshrined global warming 'action' into US government in 1990. As far as Rupert Murdoch, he put his News Corp. money behind man-caused CO2 alarmism long ago.
8/6/12, "Fred Krupp: A New Climate-Change Consensus," Wall St. Journal
"It's time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost-effective climate solutions."
"One scorching summer doesn't confirm that climate change is real any more than a white Christmas proves it's a hoax. What matters is the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather. But with more than 26,000 heat records broken in the last 12 months and pervasive drought turning nearly half of all U.S. counties into federal disaster areas, many data-driven climate skeptics are reassessing the issue.
Respected Republican leaders like Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey*** have spoken out about the reality of climate change. Rupert Murdoch's recent tweet—"Climate change very slow but real. So far all cures worse than disease."—may reflect an emerging conservative view. Even Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, during public comments in June, conceded the reality of climate change while offering assurances that "there will be an engineering solution" and "we'll adapt."
Even if my outlook differs, these views may turn out to be a welcome turning point. For too long, the U.S. has had two camps talking past each other on this issue. One camp tended to preach and derided questions about climate science as evidence of bad motivation. The other camp claimed that climate science was an academic scam designed to get more funding, and that advocates for action were out to strangle economic growth.** Charges of bad faith on both sides—and a heavy dose of partisan politics—saw to it that constructive conversation rarely occurred.
If both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion."...via Climate Depot-------------------------------------------
***Ed. note: Kasich and Christie are "respected" on what issues and by whom? This is only Krupp's opinion.
------------------------------------------
For those unaware of the good news, US CO2 emissions have dropped steadily since at least 2006 and are going lower! This has been acknowledged in the NY Times at least once. Other countries' CO2 hasn't dropped,
- despite hundreds of billions spent on cap and trade and extra taxes.
------------------------------------------
**Mr. Krupp, calls to reduce US industry and economy have been made many times and have already been realized to a degree. To claim otherwise indicates you have some kind of pressing problem. Here are 4 of many examples:
Example #1, Obama-Biden campaign adviser Purvis says "constraining industry" is part of climate issue:
1/13/12, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv
"Ironically, the ‘cap and trade’ idea that underwrites the global carbon market was originally the brainchild of US Republicans [via George Bush #1]. But this changed because of what one senior US climate negotiator at Kyoto described as a collection of “toxic” ingredients.
"“There are three issues –
- constraining industry,
- sending money abroad, and
- strengthening the UN –
Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington....Nigel Purvis, now the president of the Climate Advisers consultancy in Washington."..."In 2008, Mr. Purvis served as a senior adviser on climate diplomacy to the Obama-Biden campaign."
--------------------------------------------------
Example #2 that climate issue is about drastically reducing economic growth:
5/16/12, "Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!," UK Register, Lewis Page
"Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now.
Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.
The WWF presents these demands in its just-issued Living Planet Report for 2012. It's a remarkable document, not least for the fact that it is formally endorsed for the first time by the European Space Agency (ESA) - an organisation which would cease to exist in any meaningful form if the document's recommendations were to be carried out."...
--------------------------------------------
Example #3, Peter Gleick tells the US Senate that industry caused AGW and the US must sacrifice its economy:
2/7/2007, "Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive,” Gleick Provides Testimony to Senate Hearing," Pacific Institute Press Release
"“In the long run, the truth of whether the earth is round (mostly), goes around the sun (so the best evidence shows), or is warming due to industrial activity (considered ‘very likely’ i.e., more than 90% certainty) will be demonstrated on the global stage,” Gleick wrote. “Short-term political or economic advantage must be trumped by our collective responsibilities to protect public health, the environment, and our national security."...
--------------------------------------------
Example #4
11/28/09, "Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri," UK Guardian, J. Randerson
-------------------------------------------
7/28/12, "The Energy Revolution 4: Hot Planet?," Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest
"But there is one group (other than the Russians and the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians) that isn’t sharing in the general joy: the greens. For them, the spectacle of a looming world energy crisis was good news. It justified huge subsidies for solar and wind power (and thereby guaranteed huge fortunes for clever green-oriented investors). Greens outdid themselves year after year with gloom and doom forecasts about the coming oil crunch. They hoped that public dislike of the Middle East and the costs of our involvement there could be converted into public support for expensive green energy policies here at home: “energy independence” was one of the few arguments they had that resonated widely among average voters. Back in those salad days of green arrogance, there was plenty of scoffing at the ‘peak oil deniers’ and shortage skeptics who disagreed with what greens told us all was settled, Malthusian science. “Reality based” green thinkers sighed and rolled their eyes at the illusions of those benighted techno-enthusiasts who said that unconventional sources like shale oil and gas and the oil sands of Canada would one day become available.
Environmentalists, you see, are science based, unlike those clueless, Gaia-defying technophiles with their infantile faith in the power of human creativity. Greens, with their awesome powers of Gaia-assisted intuition, know what the future holds.
But those glory days are over now, and the smarter environmentalists are bowing to the inevitable. George Monbiot, whose cries of woe and pain in the Guardian newspaper have served as the Greek chorus at each stage of the precipitous decline of the global green movement, gave voice to green grief at the prospect of a wealthy and prosperous century to come: “We were wrong,” he wrote on July 2,”about peak oil. There’s enough to fry us all.” Monbiot now gets the politics as well....
In other words, a newly oil rich United States is going to fight even harder against global green carbon policies, and the new discoveries will tilt the American political system even farther in the direction of capitalist oil companies.
Capitalism is not, Monbiot is forced to admit, a fragile system that will easily be replaced. Bolstered by huge supplies of oil, it is here to stay. Industrial civilization is, as far as he can now see, unstoppable. Gaia, that treacherous slut, has made so much oil and gas that her faithful acolytes today cannot protect her from the consequences of her own folly....
A year later, despite the success of environmentalists like McKibben at persuading the Obama administration to block a pipeline intended to ship this oil to refineries in the US, it’s clear (as it was crystal clear all along to anyone with eyes to see) that the world has every intention of making use of the “crappy liquor.”
Again, for people who base their claim to world leadership on their superior understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, greens prove over and over again that they are surprisingly naive and crude in their ability to model and to shape the behavior of the political and economic systems they seek to control. If their understanding of the future of the earth’s climate is anything like as wish-driven, fact-averse and intellectually crude as their approach to international affairs, democratic politics and the energy market, the greens are in trouble indeed. And as I’ve written in the past, the contrast between green claims to understand climate and to be able to manage the largest and most complex set of policy changes ever undertaken, and the evident incompetence of greens at managing small (Solyndra) and large (Kyoto, EU cap and trade, global climate treaty) political projects today has more to do with climate skepticism than greens have yet understood. Many people aren’t rejecting science; they are rejecting green claims of policy competence. In doing so, they are entirely justified by the record....The problem is the original sin of much environmental thought: Malthusianism. If greens weren’t so addicted to Malthusian horror narratives they would be able to see that the new era of abundance is going to make this a cleaner planet faster than if the new gas and oil had never been found.
Let’s be honest. It has long been clear to students of history, and has more recently begun to dawn on many environmentalists, that all that happy-clappy carbon treaty stuff was a pipe dream and that nothing like that is going to happen. A humanity that hasn’t been able to ban the bomb despite the clear and present dangers that nuclear weapons pose isn’t going to ban or even seriously restrict the internal combustion engine and the generator.The political efforts of the green movement to limit greenhouse gasses have had very little effect so far, and it is highly unlikely that they will have more success in the future. The green movement has been more of a group hug than a curve bending exercise, and that is unlikely to change. If the climate curve bends, it will bend the way the population curve did: as the result of lots of small human decisions driven by short term interest calculations rather than as the result of a grand global plan....
Perhaps, and I know this is a heretical thought, but perhaps Gaia is smarter than the greens."================================
7/15/12, "Recession Special: Cleaner Air," NY Times, Matthew Wald
"What the government has not mandated, the economy is doing on its own: emissions of global warming gases in the United States are down.
According to the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions peaked in this country in 2005 and will not reach that level again until the early 2020s."...
-----------------------------------------------------------
US CO2 has dropped steeply and is going lower:
--------------------------------------
6/29/12, "US Carbon Output Forecasts Shrink Again," American Interest, Walter Russell Mead
--------------------------------------
6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
-------------------------------------
6/22/12, "U.S. cuts greenhouse gases despite do-nothing Congress," CNN, Steve Hargreaves
"Even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall."...
--------------------------------------------------------
4/21/12, "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com
"As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade."
------------------------------------------------------
11/23/11, "Europe's $287 billion carbon 'waste': UBS report," The Australian, by Sid Maher
"SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions."...EU CO2 trading provided "windfall profits" to participants paid for by "electricity customers.""
---------------------------------------------------------
4/23/12, "'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change," UK Daily Mail, L. Warren
===============
7/16/10, "Carbon Trading Used as Money-Laundering Front," Jakarta Globe--------------------------------------
10/8/10, "Murder on the Carbon Express: Interpol Takes On Emissions Fraud," Mother Jones, M. Schapiro
==========================
5/6/12, "US Leads EU in CO2 Reductions," Walter Russell Mead, American Interest
==========================A 2011 report noted EIA results through 2009, US CO2 emissions dropped steadily since 1999. If, hypothetically, US temperatures have been on the increase, they couldn't possibly be related to US carbon dioxide emissions:
4/14/11, "Biggest Drop in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," World Climate Report
"In 2009, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. experienced their biggest drop since the U.S. Energy Information Administration began tracking them during the 1990-2009 timeframe."
-------------------------------------
1/25/2009, "Global warming industry becomes too big to fail," Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner
---------------------------------------------------------
8/23/11, "The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria," Forbes, Larry Bell
"The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included."...
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
1/21/11, "Analysis: U.S. government a tenuous beachhead for biofuel firms," Reuters
"The U.S. military has emerged as a key ally for fledgling producers of non-food-based biofuels."...
-------------------------------------------------
A few examples of climate cash sought in 2011:
1/11/11, "Big Money in Climate Change: Who Gives, Who Gets," Al Fin
-----------------------------------------------
CRS says congress may want to consider that global warming isn't happening anyway.
3/26/12, "Obama Requests $770 Million to Fight Global Warming Overseas," CNS News, Matt Cover
"The Obama administration has requested $770 million in federal funds to combat the effects of global warming in developing countries, a new congressional report details, continuing its policy of using foreign aid to combat the effects of global warming in the developing world.
The figure, from a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), shows that despite another year of $1 trillion deficits, the Obama administration continues to pursue its policy of using foreign aid funds for anti-global warming measures – known as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI).
According to CRS, the government has spent a total of $2.5 billion on GCCI since 2010 on overseas anti-global warming efforts in Latin America, Asia, and Africa."...
-----------------------------------------
And, "Only 12% (of net US petroleum imports) came from Saudi Arabia last year, down from nearly 19% in 1993."...
12/16/11, "Oil boomlet sweeps U.S. as exports and production rise," USA Today, Wendy Koch
"The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel....
"It's dramatic. It's transformative," Edward Morse, a former senior U.S. energy official who now directs global commodities research at Citigroup, says of the historic shifts. He says the U.S. is importing a smaller share — 49% in 2010, down from 60% in 2005 — of the oil it uses, adding: "We're moving toward energy independence.""...
----------------------------------------------
11/30/11, "U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter," Wall St. Journal, by L. Pleven, R. Gold
"U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011
for the first time in 62 years.
A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports,
- upending the historical norm.
According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels."...
-----------------------------------------------------
7/28/10, "The secrets 10 states and Wall Street don't want you to know," by Mark Lagerkvist, NJ Watchdog
""Secrecy and greed are polluting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation’s first
- mandatory cap-and-trade system.
- $729 million in carbon dioxide permits since 2008.
------------------------------------------------
4/3/2012, EDF took money from UK to try to "re-educate" Texas hicks about catastrophic man-caused global warming:
4/3/12, "Rick Perry criticises UK initiative to influence US climate sceptics," UK Guardian, Leo Hickman
"In 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) gave £13,673 to the US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to part-fund a project entitled "Influencing climate security policy and legislation in Texas", the Guardian has learned. The money was used to fly two Texan state politicians, including the climate sceptic Republican Troy Fraser, to the UK to receive a briefing with climate scientists and government officials. A conference was also held at the Texas Capitol in Austin in which a video of Prince Charles personally addressing Texan politicians on the subject of climate change was shown."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment