Is it strange that an economist at the Office of Management and Budget would attack the cost of a new clean air rule? Not when you consider the background of the economist, Randall Lutter, who is assigned to OMB from the Food and Drug Administration.

According to emails obtained by the Washington Post, statements from Lutter such as: “Are these really instances of zero-cost emissions reductions, or are they instead instances of emissions reductions that should already be in the baseline?” provide agencies like EPA cover in weakening regulations that protect the public.

But before Lutter was at FDA, he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, which famously offered scientists $10,000 to undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007. The AEI has taken aim at EPA’s role in combating climate change, a recent post on AEI’s Enterprise blog compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Dirty Harry: “You can just see Jackson standing there with a .44 magnum in her hand, and a steely glint in her eye, telling industry “You’ve got to ask yourself one question, ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

And Lutter has committed many of his own distortions of regulatory recommendations, including using a “willingness to pay” estimate to challenge a lead exposure rule. Lutter asks how much parents would pay to subject their children to dangerous chelation therapy, used only on those exposed to severe metal poisoning. He does not estimate lost income due to reduced IQ of children exposed to elevated lead, or the harm that chelation therapy does in terms of leeching calcium from bones.

It’s not hard to believe that someone who thinks chelation is a reasonable countermeasure for lead exposure might grasp at something like geoengineering as a means to combat climate change. Geoengineering – the idea that to combat a massive-scale distortion of natural climate patterns is to stage a massive-scale distortion of natural climate patterns – captures the quick fix set. But, the technology poses many additional risks, and is by no means a replacement for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Lena Pons is a transportation policy analyst for Public Citizen.

Flickr photo by davipt.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
12/2/2009 2:01:37 PM 

It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC’s Sunday talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

The ClimateGate scandal, as it is being called, has the hallmarks of a major news story: private emails purporting to show unethical or illegal behavior supplied by a hacker or whistleblower, high profile scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann, and a potential conspiracy to distort science for political gain. But the networks haven’t bothered with the story.

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and BMI adviser, said Nov. 20 of the leaked e-mails and documents: “This isn’t a smoking gun, it’s a mushroom cloud.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question about ClimateGate by insisting that “global warming is happening” and that for most people it isn’t really a question anymore. That is the same message viewers get from the network news about climate change.

An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ “minor” car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner.

ClimateGate began after someone (hacker or whistleblower) attacked servers of University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and made thousands of e-mails  and documents public. Those e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles.

CRU’s director Phil Jones admitted real CRU e-mails had been stolen when he told New Zealand’s Investigate magazine, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.” Others argue a whistleblower was responsible for the breach.

One of those alleged e-mails was from Jones to Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data.

Jones wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Jones, who contributed to a chapter of the U.N.’s IPCC report, claims the term “trick” was used “colloquially as in a clever thing to do.” Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), supplied his own view of what Jones and Mann meant by hiding the decline.

Ebell wrote in the National Post: “What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades … So what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila! – the hockey stick.”

The alleged e-mails were enough to force Jones’ temporary resignation. On Dec. 1, Associated Press reported that Jones is “stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”

Other leaked e-mails asked people to delete e-mails and one said that if information was requested using FOI, it would be deleted rather than turned over:

Alleged e-mail from Jones to Mann Feb. 2, 2005:

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does !  The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

In Britain, it is a crime to delete information requested under FOI.

Networks Focus on Tiger’s ‘Minor’ Accident, Sea Lions, Pete the Moose

In more than a week, the networks couldn’t be bothered to report on the ClimateGate scandal. Instead they fixated on professional golfer Tiger Woods’ car accident and the rumors surrounding the crash at least 37 times.

And ABC, CBS and NBC had even more trivial stories to discuss during that time than Woods. Somehow the networks considered a sea lion glut in San Francisco, Pete the orphaned Moose, the color of tablecloths at the state dinner, Great White shark vs. Killer Whale, a baby panda and the Sonoma, Calif. crush of grapes. All were more worthy of reporting than a scandal that prompted one U.S. senator to call for an investigation.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said on Washington Times Radio Nov. 23 that “Since Barbara Boxer is the chairman and I’m the ranking member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days, when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation because this thing is serious.”

The three broadcast networks ignored ClimateGate even in reports about the upcoming climate change conference. On Nov. 25, all three evening newscasts mentioned Obama would be going to Copenhagen. NBC’s Brian Williams called global warming “one of the biggest issues facing the planet,” But didn’t say a word about the hacked emails or possibly manipulated data that laid the foundation for emissions reductions.

But just one day earlier, CBS’s Declan McCullagh reported on CBSNews.com that Congress might investigate “whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.” McCullagh’s lengthy story detailed the e-mail leak and reactions to it from both warming advocates and skeptics.

ABCNews.com waited until Nov. 28 to do an original report on the leaked e-mails on its Web site.

Scientists implicated…

The e-mails (which can be viewed and searched online) appear to show unethical and potentially illegal behavior on the part of prominent scientists (many of whom are involved in the UN IPCC process).

Here are just a couple of the most embarrassing e-mails that can speak for themselves:

From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and others including James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer in Oct. 2009:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

From Jones to Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and Michael Mann on Feb. 21, 2005:

“PS: I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

A May 2009 e-mail from Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mails regarding the Fourth IPCC draft and said Keith and Caspar would also delete the correspondence.

One scientist featured prominently in many of the CRU e-mails was Mann, whose research has long been scrutinized by other scientists. He introduced his hockey stick chart in the 1990s, but it was questioned in 1998 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard, according to a February 2005 Wall Street Journal article. In 2003 others, including mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, also criticized Mann’s hockey stick.

The Journal reported at that time that Mann “tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions.”

Mann defended himself in a letter to the Washington Post on Dec. 1, 2009 saying “some have engaged in a smear campaign.” “They have stolen thousands of scientists’ personal e-mails, including some of mine, and have mined the e-mails for words or phrases whose meaning can easily be distorted,” Mann continued.

Iain Murray, a senior fellow at CEI, explained why the e-mails were so important and the three things everyone should know about ClimateGate.

“This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers,” Murray wrote.

Murray said the three vital things the documents indicated were that “the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results,” talked about “subverting the scientific peer review process” to prevent skeptics from being published, and worked to prevent disclosure of the information.

But the leaked e-mails were only the tip of the iceberg. According to The London Times online, scientists at the University of East Anglia “admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

That article described CRU as “the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures,” and quoted Roger Pielke, an environmental studies professor from Colorado University.

“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us.’ So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” Pielke said.

Networks promote global warming, censor skepticism

Sadly, the willingness of the networks to capitulate to the global warming agenda and ignore other voices is not a recent phenomenon.

The Business & Media Institute has reported for years the way in which the news media have latched on to climate scares in the past 100 years (cooling, warming, cooling and now warming again). From ice age threats in the late 1800s to the warming in the 1920s, before returning to cooling fears again in the 1970s, print media encouraged fears of climate apocalypse.

But even more worrisome is the way the network news media have stifled debate on the issue of climate change. BMI released a Special Report in 2008 that found global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when they do barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” are often thrown in to undermine them.

On the networks, man-made global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumber those with dissenting opinions. During the 2007 study window, there was an average of 13 global warming advocates for each skeptic featured. CBS had the worst ratio: 38-to-1. That report also found that the networks frequently omit the cost of so-called solutions to global warming.

In 2009, BMI found that the networks remained silent as House committee passed a cap-and-trade bill out of committee. That bill, known as Waxman-Markey, could cost $9.6 trillion in GDP loss by 2035, according to one estimate. Meanwhile, the networks ignored the bill and almost never explained what cap-and-trade meant.

Ignoring the ClimateGate scandal is just the latest in a long line of poor reporting on climate issues by the network news media. Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com told the Business & Media Institute that the fact that the networks aren’t covering the story is actually “great news for the truth.”

Morano explained that the networks are making the “classic mistake” of thinking if they ignore the story it will go away, but talk radio and the internet are getting the information out to the public without spin from the networks which he said are “heavily invested in manmade global warming.”

 http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx

Given Saudi Arabia’s total dependence on the sale of oil it comes as no surprise that the nation is committed to standing against efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions at next week’s climate-change conference in Copenhagen. But the dictatorship’s willingness to site the hacked E-mails of a few university scientists as proof climate change has not been impacted by the amount of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere by man is childish.

The rest of the world cannot allow nations that were too narrow-minded to diversify their economies to hold the talks in Copenhagen hostage. Whether Saudi Arabia likes it or not the rest of the world must move forward with plans to end our reliance on the toxic substances that Middle Eastern dictators sell to fund terrorism and oppress their citizens.

And using natural gas for fuel. Regardless what your thoughts are on anthropogenic global warming, the goal of reducing greenhouse gas rests on solid scientific ground. Natural gas is a plentiful commodity in the oil and gas sector and this technology sounds like a great alternative to coal and dirtier petroleum.

The release:

Proposed system uses solid-oxide fuel cells to produce power without sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

A new type of natural-gas electric power plant proposed by MIT researchers could provide electricity with zero carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, at costs comparable to or less than conventional natural-gas plants, and even to coal-burning plants. But that can only come about if and when a price is set on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — a step the U.S. Congress and other governments are considering as a way to halt climate change.

Postdoctoral associate Thomas Adams and Paul I. Barton, the Lammot du Pont Professor of Chemical Engineering, propose a system that uses solid-oxide fuel cells, which produce power from fuel without burning it. The system would not require any new technology, but would rather combine existing components, or ones that are already well under development, in a novel configuration (for which they have applied for a patent). The system would also have the advantage of running on natural gas, a relatively plentiful fuel source — proven global reserves of natural gas are expected to last about 60 years at current consumption rates — that is considered more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. (Present natural-gas power plants produce an average of 1,135 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour of electricity produced — half to one-third the emissions from coal plants, depending on the type of coal.)

Absent any price for carbon emissions, Adams says, when it comes to generating electricity “the cheapest fuel will always be pulverized coal.” But as soon as there is some form of carbon pricing — which attempts to take into account the true price exacted on the environment by greenhouse gas emissions — “ours is the lowest price option,” he says, as long as the pricing is more than about $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide. Such a pricing mechanism would be put in place, for example, by the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July, through its “cap and trade” provisions. (A corresponding bill has not yet reached the floor of the U.S. Senate.) If the program becomes law, the actual price per ton of carbon would vary, being determined through the free market.

Natural gas already accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. electricity production, and that percentage is likely to rise in coming years if carbon prices are put into effect. For these and other reasons, a system that can produce electricity from natural gas at a competitive price with zero greenhouse gas emissions could prove to be an attractive alternative to conventional power plants that use fossil fuels.

The system proposed by Adams and Barton would not emit into the air any carbon dioxide or other gases believed responsible for global warming, but would instead produce a stream of mostly pure carbon dioxide. This stream could be harnessed and stored underground relatively easily, a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). One additional advantage of the proposed system is that, unlike a conventional natural gas plant with CCS that would consume significant amounts of water, the fuel-cell based system actually produces clean water that could easily be treated to provide potable water as a side benefit, Adams says.

How they did it: Adams and Barton used computer simulations to analyze the relative costs and performance of this system versus other existing or proposed generating systems, including natural gas or coal-powered systems incorporating carbon capture technologies.

Combined-cycle natural gas plants — the most efficient type of fossil-fuel power plants in use today — could be retrofitted with a carbon-capture system to reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 90 percent. But the MIT researchers’ study found that their proposed system could eliminate virtually 100 percent of these emissions, at a comparable cost for the electricity produced, and with even a higher efficiency (in terms of the amount of electricity produced from a given amount of fuel).

Next steps: Although no full-scale plants using such systems have yet been built, the basic principles have been demonstrated in a number of smaller units including a 250-kilowatt plant, and prototype megawatt-scale plants are planned for completion around 2012. Actual utility-scale power plants would likely be on the order of 500 megawatts, Adams says. And because fuel cells, unlike conventional turbine-based generators, are inherently modular, once the system has been proved at small size it can easily be scaled up. “You don’t need one large unit,” Adams explains. “You can do hundreds or thousands of small ones, run in parallel.” Adams says practical application of such systems is “not very far away at all,” and could probably be ready for commercialization within a few years. “This is near-horizon technology,” he says.

Source: Journal of Power Sources: “High-efficiency power production from natural gas with carbon capture”

Funding: The research was partly funded from the BP-MIT Conversion Research Program

Have you ever heard of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”? The busy season leading up to Christmas is a good time to think about this huge, floating mass of trash, and about how we as consumers can reduce our impact on the natural environment.

Scientists are studying an enormous expanse of accumulated plastic, some of it large enough to see but much of it in tiny particles, floating below the surface of the Pacific Ocean. Trash ends up in the ocean both from ships and from land. Ocean currents carry it sometimes thousands of miles. Scientists say the Great Pacific Garbage Patch floats roughly halfway between California and Hawaii, and could be as large as twice the size of Texas. Think this is too far off to affect you? Marine creatures ingest the particles, then are eaten themselves by larger organisms and eventually fish. Do you ever eat fish?

No one yet knows whether or how it will be possible to clean up this floating marine landfill. Meanwhile other, smaller garbage patches are appearing in other oceans. It’s easy here on dry land not to think about these challenges, but they are serious and growing. Every plastic yogurt cup we throw away, every plastic-coated item we buy, every plastic bag we allow to get into

the garbage stream, could end up through some circuitous route in the water and swept through the ocean, breaking down into microscopic, non-biodegradable particles and entering the food chain. Every American, living in the biggest consumer nation on earth, ought to be thinking about how personal consumption patterns play a role in the global garbage problem.

International waters aren’t next door to us. But clean oceans are essential to human survival. We owe it to each other and to the rest of the world to be responsible consumers and to help solve the challenge of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Watching our purchasing, packaging and throwing-away habits is a good way to start.

Source: http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091203/NEWS04/912030302

Image via Wikipedia

From my green living blog:

We can help American families cope with high gas prices by investing in public transportation and communities with transportation alternatives through climate change legislation.waynechecker.net, waynechecker.net, Dec 2009

You should read the whole article.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: 10 Percent Transit Growth Would Help Meet House Climate Target (streetsblog.org)

China? Russia? India? The United States? No, it’s Canada-

Canada’s image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling. The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen.  George Monbiot. U.K. Guardian.

We have posted several articles on oil sands development. It is said to be the single biggest greenhouse gas polluter on the planet.

Once again the arrogance of the White House is well represented by Robert Gibbs as he responds to a question on the “science” of global warming from Fox News’ Major Garrett. Despite over 30,000 scientists worldwide going on record as refuting the science that climate change is caused directly by humans, Mr. Gibbs dismisses the comment saying,  “there is no real scientific basis for dispute of this.” 

Also pay attention to his comments referring to Obama’s participation and his goal. Gibbs states that Obama is going to Copenhagen to try to “use this visit to get us to the point of a deal”. There is no deal that can come out of Copenhagen that will be good for the U.S. or our sovereignty. Watch the exchange below:

In light of Climategate and all the opposition to the global warming scare, you would think that it might be time to call for an open dialogue with both sides of the scientific community to determine the best course of action. Except of course, Al Gore has weighed in and also claims that the science is settled.

Lies, lies and more lies. This is a power grab that has been underway since the sixties beginning with The Club of Rome. It is the key to setting up the U.N. to provide the backbone of global governance.

Read the quotes of the leaders of this movement. See the quotes here: http://bit.ly/44Up7e  

They have a plan and they are executing. The Copenhagen Treaty conference could be the tipping point. The Climategate emails are the break the good guys need to show this scam for what it is. We must let our leaders know that we do not want them to sign us on to a treaty that will destroy our economy and our sovereignty especially when it is based on science that is in serious question. The only eminent threat is global governance and empowering the U.N. with more control of world affairs.

Wake up, America – your future is at stake. Our sovereign nation and your freedom hangs in the balance.

Restore our Republic, Reject Green Lies, Reject the Copenhagen Treaty!

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” — Patrick Henry 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Monday, July 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Urging India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the weekend accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change.

“We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” Clinton said in Mumbai, India.

“We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes,” she added.

While stopping short of an apology for a U.S. role in “global warming,” Clinton’s remarks came closer than previous ones.

Last April, she told a gathering of major economies in Washington that the U.S. “is responsible for past emissions” of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change; Obama said at the G8 summit in Italy this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities,” adding, “Those days are over.”

On her first visit to India as secretary of state, Clinton was confronted by New Delhi’s determination not to accept mandatory restrictions on its greenhouse gas emissions.

“India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally-binding emission reduction targets,” Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said Sunday, after he and Clinton toured an eco-friendly building near the capital and had a roundtable discussion on environmental issues.

Although the two governments both said they want to see a global agreement reached at a key climate conference in Copenhagen in December, the differences between them on the issue of what developing nations will bring to the table was evident.

Ramesh handed out copies of remarks made during his talks with Clinton, underlying Delhi’s position.

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we – who have among the lowest emissions per capita – face to actually reduce emissions,” Ramesh said he told Clinton.

“And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” he said. The reference was to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, which contains a clause that would impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not reduce emissions by 2020. (Obama has praised the bill, but says he opposes the “protectionist” tariff measure.)

The Copenhagen meeting is meant to produce a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires leading economies to cut the amount of greenhouse gases they produce by specified amounts by 2012.

India, China and others have long argued that climate agreements should not hinder developing countries’ economic growth – and they got their way with Kyoto.

One of the main reasons President Bush gave for rejecting the protocol was the fact it did not set emission reduction targets for developing countries, despite some of them – including India and especially China – being leading CO2 producers. Bush and anti-Kyoto ally John Howard of Australia argued that unless China and India curbed their fast-growing emissions, efforts to do so by leading developed nations would have little effect.

Clinton made a similar argument in India on Sunday.

“There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue,” she said in a joint media appearance with Ramesh and the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern.

“And for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects.”

Clinton said Obama was committed to the cap-and-trade bill before Congress.

“But it is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead,” she continued. “Because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries.

“Now, China is, by far, the largest emitter in the world right now, and certainly the largest among developing countries,” Clinton said. “But India’s own greenhouse gas pollution is projected to grow by about 50 percent between now and 2030. So, climate change would not be solved even if developed countries stopped emitting greenhouse gas emissions today, unless action is taken across the world.”

Climate, population and family planning

In other comments, Clinton described Sunday’s roundtable discussion as “very enlightening, especially for me.”

As an example of this, she noted that “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

“That was an incredibly important point,” Clinton said. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.

In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”

Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”

In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.

Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.

Australia has found an innovative solution to global warming: breed ‘green’ sheep that burp less. That’s right, burpless sheep.

It sounds like something you’d hear about on April 1st, but it’s November and the story is entirely true.

Forget planes, forget oil hungry America and most certainly forget those Chelsea tractors. Farting and burping sheep and cows are the real reason why we’ll all be sunning it in England very soon.

Joking aside, gasey livestock is a serious problem apparently.

According to Australia’s department of climate change, 16% of the country’s greenhouse emissions come from agriculture. And Australia’s Sheep Cooperative Research Council says 66% of agricultural emissions are released as methane from the the bellies of livestock.

New Zealand have a similar problem, where scientists estimate that a massive 43% of the country’s greenhouse gases come from livestock.

Globally, 28% of all methane resulting from human related activities comes from agriculture. Who would have thought that grass would have such a stomach rumbling effect, causing sheep and cows to burp and fart in symphony after each and every one of their meals??

Methane is considered the second most important gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide, yet has far more impact on global warming than its much publicised cousin.

Scientists now believe that we have seriously underestimated the gas’ impact on global temperatures and that this is about a third higher than previously thought.

The Australian researchers in New South Wales are trying to discover the genetic link that means some sheep burp less than others and have been conducting experiments in special pens where they measure how much gas sheep emit when eating (not a job that had many volunteers I’m sure).

The problem is not a new one. It has already been a few years that scientists have been studying the problem and have been hoping to invent foods that reduce gassiness.

Anyway, if you think I’m making this all up, check out the incriminating evidence in this video. Very rude sheep indeed.

Farmers in Uproar on Cow Tax Issue

Leave it to a farmer to outsmart all the politicians. Instead of coming up with yet another tax, and I’m sure he was hoping to avoid the “cow tax” that is supposed to tax cow emissions/manure (or to be blunt, cow farts), this farmer went to work using his noggin’

Here is a photo of his invention. Let’s hope he can patent it so us farmers don’t get stuck with a cow tax.

Farmer's Solution to Cow Tax & Greenhouse Gas Issue

Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

As the wheels come off the biggest scam in world history, the cool kids at Minnesota Majority rock it with their video tribute to the false science of Climate Change. Take this Al Gore!

Here is an excerpt from Michael Mann’s hacked email explaining that the truth doesn’t matter: “Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?  As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we  actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our  original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations”.

Wake up, America you are being lied to! Our sovereignty and way of life is at stake. There are revolutionaries running our government who want to “fundamentallty transform America”. The Global Warming Lie is just a means to an end for them. Don’t fall for it! Being a good steward of the planet is a responsibility of all earth’s citizens but it is not necessary to destroy our country, our economy or our sovereignty to be a good citizen of the planet.

Restore the Republic, Reject Green Lies!

Here’s the story from Steve McIntyre. (H/T Story from Watts Up With That via ECM)

Excerpt:

“Hide the decline” refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century, a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. (I’m going to analyze the letters on another occasion.) In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, IPCC “hid the decline” by simply deleting the post-1960 values of the troublesome Briffa reconstruction – an artifice that Gavin Schmidt characterizes as an “a good way to deal with a problem” and tells us that there is “nothing problematic” about such an artifice (see here.

Not only were the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction not shown in the IPCC 2001 report – an artifice that Gavin describes as being “hidden in plain sight”, they were deleted from the archived version of the reconstruction at NOAA here (note: the earlier Briffa 2000 data here does contain a related series through to 1994.)

Here’s the graph, with the decline added back in.

Hide The Decline

Wow, look at that decline that somehow wasn’t included in the graphs made the global warming alarmists. Did they use a trick to hide the decline?

Hide the decline

And here’s a catchy video to help you remember all of this. (H/T Lex Communis)

The scary part is that two of my leftist friends still kept their faith in global warming after this scandal broke. It’s a religion, but one that is diconfirmed by the evidence.

Related posts

• Climate Research Unit servers hacked, e-mails made public
• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

If Thanksgiving is the appointed time for rampant overeating and Black Friday our annual date with discount frenzy, then today could perhaps become enshrined as Hangover Saturday, a good time to reflect on consumption rather than engage in it.

Here a selection of Hangover Saturday thoughts gathered in the course of a restful day:

When people talk about what they are grateful for (on Thursday), they never say, “I’m grateful that I have so much stuff” or “My cup runs over because of those Manolo Blahniks I bought last spring” or “The best thing that ever happened to me is my Lamborghini.” It’s possible they’re just trying not to tip their hand, but I suspect we don’t hear those things because, actually, we all do know better.

Our current economic woes have had one advantage: to clarify the point that consumption is not a selfish indulgence but a patriotic duty, philanthropy flowing ceaselessly towards the wealthy, so that our expenditures can come back to us in the form of jobs, which may be defined as a palliative for massive debt or as a subsidy for patriotic duty, sadly insufficient.

Can't touch that 42% of greenhouse gas tied up in goods and food!

Whoever thought of the slogan “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” was not really clued in to the realities of our economic system. We do our bit to help with recycling at least in some parts of the country, but when we make an (unwilling and modest) start on the “Reduce” component, the whole country goes off the rails. That must be why the EPA report “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices”—which is to say “How to Save the World by Tackling Consumption and its After-Effect, Garbage”—declines to estimate the impact on greenhouse gas production if we ate less and bought fewer things. Instead, it tries to figure out what difference it makes if, for example, we were to capture ALL the landfill gas that percolates up from our trash and convert it to electricity or if we recycle ALL the construction and demolition debris coughed up by the never-ending pursuit of bigger and better (as opposed to affordable) homes and gardens.

The opposite of consumption that most easily comes to mind on Hangover Saturday would be abstention. But consumption also has an opposite in creation, which is or can be blameless and much more fun than just saying no. The best place I know to get a feel for the truth of that proposition is S.C.R.A.P. (www.scrap-sf.org), an inspired program in San Francisco that diverts virgin merchandise from the landfill, makes it available for dirt cheap to all those with an urge to create rather than consume, and provides a bunch of jobs into the bargain.

What one might do with scrap

The San Francisco warehouse (on Newcomb between Toland and Selby) is huddled rather inauspiciously under Highway 280, but step inside and be greeted by a carnival of color and texture—papers, fabrics, buttons, doodads, figures, threads and yarn, birds, notions, glass, wood, boxes and containers, table legs and carpet squares,  stickers, ribbons, cards, and vinyl discs. On and on. Not everything leapt out at me as obvious fodder for art, including the industrial-sized potato mashers. For many things, it is immediately obvious why they are not in a store somewhere. In their original identity, the scraps that S.C.R.A.P. offers are not saleable, but as art materials they’re irresistible, guiltless, and very inexpensive.

Over it all hangs an exhibit of unpretentious art: scrap boxes emulating the best of Joseph Cornell, mobiles, a digestive tract laid out in flopping beakers and retorts, quilts, and many other works that demonstrate the virtues and joys of clean salvage.

US President Barack Obama will make an appearance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, according to NPR.  Many observers believe this will be a boost to the conference, one that will show the importance of reaching some kind of agreement.

At the conference, Obama is expected to announce that the US will set a target of a 17 percent reduction (from 2005 levels) in CO2 emissions by 2020. Whether the US can attain this goal is an important question to ask. Another important question is “Will it be enough?” As one observed said:

A US pledge of a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels roughly translates into a four percent cut from 1990 levels. This is still far less ambitious than other industrialized countries’ near-term commitments. In comparison the EU has offered a 20 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020 – 30 percent if other nations follow suit.

So, while it’s a start, it may be considerably less than expected.

A Green Cooking Demonstration in honor of Thanksgiving, in preparation for Copenhagen.

VIDEO  </object>

Hey, Obama, are you listening?  ‘Cuz the last we heard, people gotta EARN a Nobel Peace Prize!

Link to video: Do The Green Thing

http://www.greenblognetwork.blogspot.com

http://www.greenblognetwork.wordpress.com

Recyle, Reuse, Rejoice!

Some of the more extreme climate change deniers, and others who have an anti-science agenda, continue to dredge through the domestic debris of the emails stolen by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. Their conclusions are, of course, predictable.  Meanwhile, the balanced media summary oif this fiasco is probably well represented by George Monbiot in the Guardian: “The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics’ claims.” (see Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see ).

I particularly liked his depiction of the email that the climate change deniers and their allies would dearly love to find. It’s a great satire and portrays some of the silliest conspiracy theories promulgated by deniers.

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

Monbiot concludes: “This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”

What do you think? Is he being a bit harsh?

Permalink

Similar articles

ORGANIZATION FOR

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TC8

(SHIPS & MARINE TECHNOLOGY)

  OCTOBER 2009                  NEWSLETTER                       ISSUE NO. 23

FROM THE CHAIRMAN

   With the complex technical and political global challenges facing us, it is our collective responsibility to develop relevant, sustainable, user friendly, international standards in a timely manner to meet industry market needs, to support regulatory bodies in their development of requirements and to facilitate their uniform international industry implementation. If they are not timely, they are of NO value. In these difficult economic times, our challenge has never been greater to develop standards which provide tools for business transactions and eliminate barriers to trade. Outsourcing, small profit margins and fierce competition demand standards that “level the technical playing field”. In the protection of the environment, where climate change, energy efficiency, protection of marine ecosystems and disposal of hazardous materials are among the most complex challenges the world must address, international standards developed in close partnership with government regulators can offer policy makers, industry, and users with practical solutions and common benchmarks. All stakeholders must have confidence in the standards we produce – government, industry and consumers.

   In this Newsletter, four articles on key environment issues are provided – remarks by the IMO Secretary General, remarks by ISO Secretary General on World Maritime Day, World Standards Day message from the Presidents of IEC, ISO and ITU, and the notice of the ISO/TC8 – Turkey seminar on marine environment. We are honored to recognize our representative from Spain, CAPT. Nogueira, as the newly elected IMO/MEPC Vice Chairman. This is a key leadership position in IMO’s committee charged with the marine environment. Major Focus areas in TC8 and some of the most recent undertakings by our Subcommittees are provided and we welcome Tyler Messa, ISO Central Secretariat, aboard.

   We have a tremendous task before us, but we will maintain “course and speed”.

Charlie Piersall

CAPT. Charles H. Piersall, Chairman

1696 Long Level Road

 Wrightsville, PA 17368

 TEL:  +717-252-4222

 FAX:  +717-252-4223

 E-mail: amadis@olg.com

CAPTAIN MANUEL NOGUEIRA

NEW IMO/MEPC VICE CHAIRMAN

   Captain Manuel Nogueira, Representative of Spain to ISO/TC8 and a distinguished member of ISO/TC8 Chairman’s Strategic Advisory Group (CSAG), was unanimous-ly elected by the IMO member governments at the 59^th session (July 2009) of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to be the new Vice Chairman of the Committee. He brings to this high level leadership position a wealth of experience and expertise in areas of maritime safety, security and pollution control. He has been active in IMO for more than a decade.

   Captain Nogueira is Counsellor for Transport, Ministry of Transport and Development, Embassy of Spain in London. In his current position, Captain Nogueira has attended successive marine pollution episodes and marine accidents. Among his many responsibilities as Counsellor for Transport, he also serves as the Alternate Permanent Representative of Spain to IMO. In this role he prepares and coordinates meetings and takes part in the IMO subcommittees and working groups on behalf of Spain. 

   Additionally, he participates in commissions and meetings of international bodies responsible for the safety of life at sea, fighting against marine pollution, crew education and training, maritime transport, and maritime safety; as well as, participating in meetings and working groups of the European Union concerning maritime safety and maritime security.

   Captain Nogueira’s maritime career began at the age of 15 when he was an apprentice at the Bazan shipyard. His sea-going career of 22 years was aboard merchant vessels, first as a Cadet and Deck Officer and for the last 11 years as Captain (Ship’s Master). His sea-going Commands have included bulk carriers, container ships, OBO’s, chemical tankers and refrigeration (reefer) ships.

   After coming ashore, he worked at the National Maritime Rescue Coordination Center in Madrid and was Head of the Maritime Rescue Coordination Center and Vessel Traffic Service in Finisterre. His next assignments were Harbour Master (maritime authority) in La Coruna and Santa Cruz de Tenerife where he was tasked to make both fully operational as a consequence of change of responsibility over the Spanish Maritime Administration from the military to a civil administration. His next assignment (for 10 years) was as the Deputy-Director, Maritime Traffic, Safety and Marine Pollution in Madrid. 

   We extend our sincere congratulations to our shipmate Captain Nogueira in recognition of his selection to the prestigious post of Vice Chairman, IMO/MEPC, and we look forward to his continued numerous and significant contributions to helping set the course and speed of ISO/TC8 in the years ahead.

ISO/TC8 SIGNIFICANT

COMMITTEE FOCUS AREAS

• Protecting the marine ecosystem from underwater irradiated noise
• Arctic polar operations and environmental impact
• Piracy – ships, large yachts, other – new construction “design features”, existing vessels – “add-on equipment/devices”, any amendments needed for ISO 28000 series or ISO 20858?
• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships & energy efficiency (design & operations) – supporting IMO
• ISO 28000 amendments for small ports, small-to-medium businesses, assisting AEOs, etc.; other security related issues
• Intermodal; short-sea shipping; floating ports initiatives

SUBCOMMITTEE NEW ITEM EXAMPLES

• Determination of capacity of Marine Evacuation Systems (MES) for evaluation of evacuation time (SC1)
• ISO/NP 13073-1: Risk assessment on anti-fouling systems on ships – Part 1: risk assessment method on active substances used for anti-fouling systems on ships (SC2)
• ISO/AWI 13613: Critical systems for propulsion and maneuver-ability – maintenance & testing guidelines (risk & long term maintenance concerns for engines because of fuel switching from heavy marine fuels to distillate fuels in compliance with environ-mental regulations for low sulfur fuels (SC3)
• ISO/CD 13122: Launching appliances for davit-launched life raft (SC4)
• Maneuvering of ships – a multi part series (SC6)
• Air bag for ship up to or down to launching way (SC8)
• ISO/AWI 28006: Security management of RORO passenger ferries – best practices (SC11)
• ISO/AWI 30008: Ship recycling management systems – large yachts recycling (SC12).

 ISO/TC8 AND REPUBLIC OF TURKEY CONDUCT SEMINAR

ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT

  As part of ISO Technical Committee on Ships and Marine Technology’s annual meeting in Izmir, Turkey during 26-30 October 2009, ISO TC8 and Dokuz Eylül University will host a seminar on Application of ISO Standards in a Marine Environment.  The seminar will be held on October 27, 2009 at the Tınaztepe Campus School of Maritime Business and Management, Çakabey Deniz Feneri Confer-ence Hall beginning at 1400.  Capt. Charles Piersall, Chairman, ISO/ TC8 and Prof. Dr. Mehmet Füzün President of Dokuz Eylül Ün-versity will jointly chair the seminar.

   The seminar will be moderated by His Excellency CAPT. Manuel Nogueira, Vice Chairman IMO/MEPC, Counsellor for Transport Embassy of Spain in London, Representative of Spain to ISO/TC8 and Member, ISO/TC8 Chairman’s Strategic Advisory Group.  

• Opening Welcome Speeches:

Director, School of Maritime Business and Management

Republic of Turkey Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs

Turkish Standards Institution (TSE) Representative

President, Dokuz Eylül University

Chairman ISO/TC8 (CAPT. Piersall)

• Presentations:

Jack Westwood Booth, IMO Liaison Officer to ISO on “IMO Update”

Mr. Sang-Soo Seo, General Manager of Hyundai Heavy Ind. on “Performance Standards on Protective Coatings” (IMO/ISO)

 Dr. Koichi Yoshida, Chairman ISO/TC8/SC2 on “GHG and Climate Change”

Mr. Robin Townsend, Project Leader on “ISO 30000 Series Update”

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa İnsel- Türk Loydu

Emrah Erginer – Uctea Ctname, İzmir Branch

• Closing Remarks:  Chairman ISO/TC8 

CLOSING REMARKS OF THE

IMO SECRETARY-GENERAL
AT THE END OF MEPC 59

(17 July 2009) – “EXCERPTS”

   “Distinguished Delegates, We are approaching the end of an exceptionally busy session that has also been a momentous one with regard to all the issues you dealt with. So, after five days of strenuous efforts, you can look back with satisfaction on what you were able to achieve.

   From amongst the many milestones of this session, I will focus exclusively on your work relating to climate change and where we go from here. This, not only because of the importance and significance of the issue but also because of the pressure of time under which complex decisions had to be made, with the Copenhagen Conference only five months away.

    I would be carrying coal to Newcastle if, on this occasion, I stressed again the need to intensify our efforts to reduce GHG emissions from shipping operations. However, to effectively tackle climate change, the endeavour should be consistent, holistic and global: we must, as the “Times” newspaper suggested recently, demand much of our scientists, our economists, our politicians, our writers and ourselves.

  We need our scientists to lay out, brutally if necessary, the scale of the problem. And we need them to apply all their ingenuity and inventiveness to the putative technological responses to climate change. The best hope for man will be found in a laboratory, not on a soapbox. But we also need economists. It is only by finding a way of painting green the age-old and inescapable laws of supply and demand, that we will find sustainability. Man’s story is one of the pursuit and defence of natural resources and riches. An economic template based solely on a self-denying frugality that goes against Man’s nature will not provide a lasting solution to the problem.

   We will also need politicians of the highest calibre. Our nightmarish scenario painted by the prophets of climate doom is the fragmenting of the world into entities fighting for the world’s dwindling resources. We need politicians capable of creating and sustaining a consensus. Copenhagen will test their mettle. The war on climate change also needs its poets. Hearts must be won and minds changed; jargon and sloganeering cannot speak to the hearts of the unconvinced.

   Distinguished delegates, Balancing the future growth of world trade against an essential reduction in greenhouse gases is not, as “Lloyd’s List” remarked recently, a decision to be taken lightly. It is, however, a decision that needs to be made – and made now, in the harsh glare of public scrutiny and political perceptions. The world is watching – and this and future generations are expecting. We do not have the right to let them down.

   As I said in my opening speech, the time for apportioning blame as to who is responsible for the state of the planet has passed. Now it is time for action. Developed and developing countries, industrialized and emerging economies alike are left with no option other than to get together and, together, work out solutions that will serve well the good cause of reversing the route to planet destruction. Time cannot wait: IMO, that is, its Member Governments, must act – and act in such a manner that the Copenhagen Conference will find it easy to repeat the decision made in Kyoto, to continue entrusting the Organization with the regulation of shipping from the reduction and limitation of GHG emissions points of view. We have every good reason to try to achieve that.   Your sterling work to drive forward the Committee’s agreed action plan on greenhouse gas emissions from ships deserves to be recognized as compelling proof that IMO can, indeed, be entrusted with the regulation of international shipping on the issue of climatic change – an unequivocal message that needs to be heard, and fully understood, all over the globe. To that end, I urge each of you to actively promote, on your return home, the successful outcome of this session, by explaining it to your colleagues, in particular those who will participate in the Copenhagen Conference in December, and by publicizing it widely to other interested parties and all those concerned with the survival of the planet. What, then, would I consider to be “concrete progress” in pursuing the objectives you set out to attain at this session? I think I can identify them as:

• one, your agreement to the circulation of guidelines on the Energy Efficiency Design Index and on the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator;
• two, your similar agreement with respect to the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan; and
• three, the focused and well-structured discussion on market-based instruments and your elaboration of a work plan to progress the matter further.

   The complexity of the issue as to which market-based instrument to choose is exacerbated by the need to provide convincing answers not only to the question “which of the schemes proposed is the more politically palatable” but also which one stands the best chance, once selected and implemented, of achieving its main purposes: namely, that it benefits the environment by helping to stem climate change, at the same time casting shipping as an environment-conscious industry whose credentials continue to include those of being the most energy-efficient and environment-friendly mode of transport; an industry determined to form part of the solution to the climatic problem, not a contributor to its creation and persistence.

   When, back at home, you continue enquiring which scheme to support, I believe you should, in your analysis of the situation, try to answer questions such as these:

• Which of the schemes proposed has the potential to contribute most to the world efforts to stem climate change and global warming by ensuring participation by all the IMO Members?
• How best might it satisfy the aspirations of all Members, in particular those of the developing countries, without moving away from the level playing field consistently advocated by IMO?
• Who will contribute to the preferred system’s proper functioning, by how much and how?
• Who will enforce/audit it?
• How best will the proceeds from the chosen system be utilized to effect and promote its objectives?
• If it is decided that IMO is to be the body establishing the scheme – and I cannot see who else – how will the function of the scheme be monitored and supervised; and how will disputes that may arise in its operation be settled?
• How will the system be introduced, given the need to have it up and running in a very short period of time?

   These and many other relevant questions you should engage yourselves with back home……..” “It will be most unfortunate to promote the issue of shipping’s contribution to the world efforts to stem climate change in the manner we do here, conscientiously and painstakingly, comprehensively involving all parties concerned (governments, industry organizations and environmental groups), only to hear in Copenhagen comments from representatives of countries present there shedding doubts – or worse, ignoring – the work you have been doing with such commendable dedication and commitment for so long and suggesting action that might not maintain IMO’s central and pivotal role in the regulation of shipping from the environmental point of view. I sincerely hope that national policies decided, and positions articulated, will not ignore the particularities of shipping and thus miss the opportunity to render sound and sustainable services to the environment and the industry, which, from consultations I have had with its representatives, is determined and has the potential to play its role positively, constructively and responsibly.”

   For the complete report of the Secretary General, visit the IMO website http://www.imo.org

WORLD STANDARDS DAY MESSAGE

14 October 2009

TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH STANDARDS

By:  Mr. Jacques Regis, IEC President, Dr. Alan Morrison, ISO President, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, ITU Secretary-General

    The world is facing a critical challenge. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions are raising the earth’s average temperature. As a result, dramatic climate change is forecast and global scientific opinion predicts enormous developmental, economic, social and environmental stresses on our planet.

   Leading climate change experts have put forward a series of practical solutions to tackle climate change. These solutions include the technical standards published by the world’s three leading international standardization organizations: the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Telecommunication Union (TU).

   In its groundbreaking report published in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited technical standards, like those published by the IEC, ISO and ITU, as a means of mitigating climate change now, while offering the potential to reduce its effects in the future as new technologies are developed and mature.

   The three global organizations are coordinating their work to ensure that government, business and society are provided with the necessary tools to help combat global climate change and support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy efficiency, while facilitating sustainable development.

   The standards produced by the three organizations reach across all sectors identified in the IPCC report where mitigation technologies, policies and measures, constraints and opportunities exist, including energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste.

   The IEC, ISO and ITU offer a system of standardization whose output includes standards for the following aspects of the fight against climate change:

• Monitoring and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions
• Measuring the carbon footprint of networks and products
• Designing and building energy efficient homes and workplaces
• Benchmarking for good practices including environmental and energy efficiency labeling
• Promoting good practice for environmental management and design, and for energy management
• Disseminating innovative technologies that promise to help reduce the effects of climate change
• Fostering the introduction of new energy-efficient technologies and services

   International standards offer policy makers, industry and users the common tools they need to work together on tackling climate change. The three partner organizations also offer a comprehensive system in which nations and the private sector can participate to establish the priorities for tackling climate change in the years ahead. As such, they offer practical solutions with the potential to be used as part of any international agreement following the Kyoto Protocol.

   Standards from the IEC, ISO and ITU offer the world’s governments and industry the best possible benchmarks to be referenced in any policy making decisions or future climate treaties. The three organizations are working together with other international organizations to ensure that participants at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference on 7-18 December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, will be fully aware of the solutions offered by existing and future International Standards.

ISO STANDARDS’ CONTRIBUTION

TO OBJECTIVES OF

WORLD MARITIME DAY

   “To fight climate change successfully, the world needs to act as a team. ISO is proud of its teamwork with partners such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in developing solutions to this challenge” said ISO Secretary-General Rob Steele in connection with World Maritime Day 2009, which is organized annually on 24 September by the IMO, a partner organization to ISO in developing standards for this sector. ISO and IMO have a long-running and successful partnership.

   Commenting on this relationship, Mr. Steele said: “ISO standards benefit from multi-stakeholder input and are based on international consensus within sectors and between countries. Because of this, they provide an effective platform for linking the needs and objectives of IMO with those of industry. The International Standards resulting from this collaboration constitute an important technical and practical complement to different areas of IMO’s work.”  (Reprinted from an ISO press release dated 2009-09-24.  For complete text go to http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease)

WELCOME ABOARD TYLER MESSA

“Our New Man in Geneva”

     Tyler Messa is the new Technical Programme Manager (TPM) for Transport on the staff of the ISO Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, replacing Francois Abram,  who retired. In addition to his responsibilities for ISO/TC8, Mr. Messa is  the TPM for twelve other transport related ISO TCs.

   Mr. Messa joined ISO in February 2009, having previously worked as the Director for Intelligent Transport Systems at the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in Washington, DC, where, among his many duties he served as both International Secretary and US TAG Administrator for ISO/TC204 -  Intelligent Transport Systems. 

   After completing his Master’s degree, he began working as a research analyst studying U.S. government science and technology programs for a small Japanese consulting firm.  He then served as an international trade and technology analyst for the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Washington, DC and later as a Project Manager for the Korea Industrial Technology Foundation (KOTEF) in Seoul, Korea where he assisted the Korean government in establishing international collaborative partnerships in the high tech industry.

   Mr. Messa has a Master’s degree in International Affairs with a concentration in International Science and Technology Policy from the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, DC, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs and Economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. 

   Let us welcome Tyler aboard our ISO/TC8 ship as we chart our course for the future.

California Proposes Trading Program to Cut Emissions California officials on Tuesday issued the nation’s first blueprint for a broad-based cap-and-trade plan, an innovative and controversial effort to use market forces to control global warming. The California Air Resources Board released a draft rule on Tuesday establishing a cap-and-trade program that sets a declining ceiling on emissions of greenhouse gases and allows companies to buy and sell permits to meet it. The proposed system would begin in 2012 with 600 major sources of global warming pollutants, including power plants, refineries and concrete factories. California joins a number of other states and regions, including the 10 states of the Northeast, in moving ahead with programs to address global warming as Congress debates a nationwide program. The California Air Resources Board has scheduled months of hearings and public comment on the rule before it is to be finalized next October. Regulators estimated that California’s program could cost industry as much as $8 billion a year by 2020 if carbon trades at its current price on the European market of $20 per ton. European nations have operated a cap-and-trade program for the last five years. Six other Western states and four Canadian provinces have joined with California in a Western Climate Initiative with an eye toward linking in a regional cap-and-trade program. Meanwhile, if a federal bill passes, California’s program, along with a cap-and-trade program in the northeastern U.S. that covers only power plants, would probably merge with a national program, but the state could be free to require more emissions cuts in some cases. The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dipped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, even as a majority still support a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The poll’s findings show that 55 percent of respondents think the United States should curb its carbon output even if major developing nations such as China and India do less.