News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

ClimateGate 2.0 email from Oct. 1999 ties WWF, UEA, and Fenton Communications in a tidy bow-Anthony Watts

11/30/11, "Tying WWF, UEA, Fenton Communications and “commissioned research” all together," Anthony Watts, Watts up with that blog

"Here we have a press release in 1999 (email 3384) from Environmental Media Services (Fenton Communications, operator of sent on behalf of the WWF to help bolster the Kyoto Protocol.

I loved this line:

Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.

There’s that weasel word “may” and of course no timeline is given. Here we are a decade later and this press release sounds like it could have been written yesterday for Durban. The gloom and doom hasn’t changed.

The other fun part is this:

WWF commissioned the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia to conduct research into various climate change scenarios over the next few decades.

It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an inch to four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding. The Japanese cities of Tokyo and Osaka among others would also be at risk, it said.

I wonder how that research was accomplished and how much money was involved. “Commissioning” a scientific study usually means a predetermined result. Anyone have any idea what these commissioned studies were?

I’m pretty sure New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Miami are still here. Ditto for Tokyo and Osaka.

Here’s the full email:

date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:24:57 -0400
from: Adam Markham
subject: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning -Forwarded

Received: from ([])
by (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)
; Wed, 20 Oct 99 09:44:02 EDT
Received: from ([])
by with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1)
id 11dvzd-00027h-00
for; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:41:29 -0400
Received: from ( [])
by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12413
for; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from SERVER1/SpoolDir by (Mercury 1.43);
20 Oct 99 09:39:08 -0500
Received: from SpoolDir by SERVER1 (Mercury 1.43); 20 Oct 99 09:38:42 -0500
Received: from w206 ( by (Mercury 1.43);
20 Oct 99 09:38:33 -0500
Message-Id: <[]>
X-Sender: savitha.ems@[]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:38:33 -0400
From: Savitha Pathi
: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
> Copyright 1999 Associated Press
> AP Online
> October 19, 1999; Tuesday 11:47 Eastern Time
>SECTION: International news
>LENGTH: 441 words
>HEADLINE: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning
> Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of
> Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
>may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.
> The environmental group urged governments meeting in Germany next week to
> honor earlier pledges to cut emissions of carbon dioxide one of the main
> greenhouse gases by implementing tough energy-saving policies.
> ”Evidence for the warming of our planet over the last 200 years is now
> overwhelming,” said a WWF statement. ”With no action to curb
emissions, the
> climate on earth over the next century could become warmer than any the
> species has lived through.”
> It said China’s Giant Panda and the Arctic polar bear were among the >species at risk of extinction from global warming.
> WWF commissioned the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of
> Anglia to conduct research into various climate change scenarios over the
> few decades.
> It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an
>inch to
> four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities
> as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding. The Japanese
>cities of
> Tokyo and Osaka among others would also be at risk, it said.
> Large areas of the Amazon would become more susceptible to forest fires.
> Drought would also likely affect Argentina, southern Mexico and Central
> Rising sea temperatures by 2010 threatened the very survival of the
> Great Barrier Reef.
Scientists generally agree that temperatures are rising with 1998
being the
> warmest year on record. But there is no consensus on how much man is to
> ”Although the precise contribution of human activities to global warming
> cannot yet be stated with confidence, it is clear the planet would not be
> warming as rapidly if humans were not currently emitting about 6.8
>billion tons
> of carbon into the atmosphere each year,” said the WWF report.
> Under a 1997 agreement reached in the Japanese city of Kyoto,
> nations agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by five percent
> 2008 and 2012.
> Representatives from 150 countries meet later this month in Bonn to
work on
> ways of implementing the Kyoto deal prior to a November 2000 meeting in the
> Netherlands.
While President Clinton signed the Kyoto agreement, he has not sought its
> ratification because of widespread opposition in the Senate. Critics say it
> cost too much to implement while developing countries will be allowed to
> greenhouse emissions grow....

Savitha Pathi
Program Assistant
Environmental Media Services
1320 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 463-6670 / Fax: (202) 463-6671

via Tom Nelson

Deutsche Bank slashes price target for EU CO2 permits by a third-Reuters

11/29/11, "Deutsche cuts 2011 EU CO2 price view by a third," Reuters

"Deutsche Bank slashed its year-end price forecast for European Union carbon permits to 6 euros a tonne from 9 euros due to a worsening economic outlook and an oversupply of permits in the period 2013 to 2020, it said in a note on Tuesday.

The bank expects EU Allowances (EUAs) to trade in a range of 5 to 7 euros in the first half of 2012 as the impact of recession is felt and the first 200 million EUAs are sold to raise money for renewable energy technologies from a special reserve called the NER300.

"If there is a repeat of the distress in inter-bank lending markets that we saw in Q1 2009, which at that time precipitated large-scale selling of EUAs by industrial players, we think prices could break below 5 euros tonne for a time," the bank added.

The EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) caps carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from around 11,000 power generators and industrial plants in 30 European nations, covering around half of the region's carbon footprint.

Benchmark European carbon prices have shed more than half their value since June, hitting a record low 6.90 euros last Friday, as the euro zone's worsening debt crisis choked demand for emissions permits. They were trading at 7.85 euros by 1420 GMT on Tuesday.

Recent price falls have prompted five sets of carbon analysts to reduce their price forecasts in the past two weeks, including Deutsche Bank.

The growing prospect of an EU-wide recession next year has prompted the bank's analysts to cut their emissions forecasts in 2011 and 2012 by 1.5 percent and 5.6 percent to 1.97 billion tonnes and 1.92 billion tonnes of CO2, respectively.

Given the ebbing demand for CO2 permits, the bank has revised its cumulative supply forecast to a net surplus of 566 million EUAs to 2020 from a net deficit of 395 million.

"Under current EU-ETS legislation and targets, we do not think that there will be a deficit at any time beyond 2020 either," the statement said....

Deutsche Bank said EUA prices could recover to 10 euros a tonne by the end of next year if the EU's economy were to revert back to modest growth and the bloc agreed to tighten EUA supply for the trading period 2013-2020, known as the third phase.

And a tighter phase three emissions cap set in 2013 could propel EUA prices toward 20-25 euros a tonne by 2020, it said.

"Absent a credible political narrative developing over the next 6-23 months, however,

  • we think EUA prices will remain below 10 euros/tonne into 2013 and beyond.""

via Tom Nelson

Update: $8.8 billion US taxpayer dollars spent in 2010 alone on 'climate change' or global warming GAO says, including aid to 'poor' countries

US taxpayer money is funneled to chronically corrupt and mismanaged countries like the Maldives that proudly flog women. In the US, "compliance with such (EPA) regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year." And $55.4 billion more in policing and administration. EPA's prohibition on light bulbs will cost $10.9 billion a year.

Update: 8/23/11, "The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria," Forbes, Larry Bell

"The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.

A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories:
  • technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
  • science to understand climate changes,
  • international assistance for developing countries, and
  • wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.

Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009.

  • This doesn’t count about
  • $79 billion more spent for
  • climate change technology research,
  • foreign aid and
  • tax breaks for “green energy.”

OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn’t include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies

  • a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone,
  • ($16.1 billion since 1993),

bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there’s still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities

  • within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).
Climate change spending won’t slow any time soon…not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1,328 million FY 2012 budget for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems that we’ve allegedly caused
  • represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 (then $202 million).
Implemented through programs sponsored by
  • the Department of State,
  • Treasury, and
  • the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
it is funded by the administration’s executive budget. As stated, “The President’s FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.” This is part of “…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to
  • near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and
  • $100 billion annually by 2020.”

Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. [See Supreme Court 5-4 decision in 2007]. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in

  • EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that:
  • “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

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. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal

  • a federal government whose share of the entire economy
  • reaches 35.5%

when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and

  • reduce average household income
  • by more than $4,000 each year.

The EPA is now embarking upon still another among many anti-fossil fuel rampages through new pending utility rule legislation to reduce coal-fired mercury emissions.

Paradoxically, this is occurring when Americans are being virtually forced to abandon incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent fixtures containing mercury, much of which is destined to end up in landfills. EPA rushed the utility rule through in March, allowing only 60 days for public comment rather than the basic practice of 120-180 days, and overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000 in the process. Even the agency admits that the rule will cost $10.9 billion annually. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a usual White House ally, says it will directly destroy 50,000 jobs, and 200,000 more down the supply line.

The EPA has also recently announced new environmental guidelines that will essentially end surface “mountaintop” mining in a six-state region centered on Appalachia that produced more than 10% of U.S. coal in 2008, and employed nearly 20,000 people. And just how much consideration does the EPA give to the severe economic and employment impacts of its initiatives?

  • The unambiguous answer is — none.

When Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo) raised the cost consequence question, the letter she received back from Assistant EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was very clear: “Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be based solely on evaluation of the scientific evidence as it pertains to health and environmental effects. Thus, the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting the NAAQS.” Responding to a question by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Col.) before the House Environment and Energy Committee regarding regulations that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts for concrete, wallboard and roofing materials, EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus stated:

  • “We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal.”

Isn’t it maybe high time that those responsible for regulatory oversight take a serious look at those costs and impacts? After all, didn’t President Obama issue an Executive Order 13563 in January specifically

  • requiring that all new rules issued by federal agencies
  • take job creation into account?

Consider that current policies are costing hundreds of billions we can’t afford along with millions of lost employment opportunities; all based extensively on a bogus, politically manufactured climate crisis devoid of any supportable scientific evidence. This is occurring at a time when our gross national deficit following a ceiling rise exceeds the size of our GDP,

  • and the U.S. credit rating has been devalued for the first time in history.

Forget about trying to stop natural climate change. It is the political climate responsible for these circumstances we really need to change. That’s the threat that presents really serious reasons for alarm!"


Compliance with EPA regulations consumes 12-14% of US GDP. No need to burn down a house, just give it termites. (Item p. 1, 2nd to last parag.) ed.


1/26/11, "Maldives won't allow debates on anti-Islamic issues: Foreign Minister," Haveeru News Service, Ahmed Hamdhoon

"The government will not allow debates to be held in the Maldives on issues that are against the fundamentals of Islam, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem said today.

The minister's comments come two days after the UN human rights chief called for a public debate in the Maldives on the practice of flogging women found guilty of extra-marital sex.

Minister Naseem told Haveeru that the government would not open a basic Islamic principle such as flogging for public debate in the Maldives despite requests to do so.

"What's there to discuss about flogging? There is nothing to debate about in a matter clearly stated in the religion of Islam. No one can argue with God," he said."...


1/8/11, "How can climate scientists spend so much money?,"

Chart showing some of 13 US agencies and their budgets for 'man caused climate change' which for 2011 alone totals $2.6 billion:

From Chapter 15 of the AAAS report by the American Meteorological society, "Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget."

On page 175 it says the NSF (National Science Foundation) is getting $7.4 billion in 2011. That's a lot of money for a group that itself admits it can't do its job because so much of its staff is busy watching costly live porn or traveling on taxpayer money to


Burning dollar from Forbes article via flickr

Chart above from ClimateQuotes.

Global warming profiteer David Suzuki perhaps doubts adult 'science' as he goes for vulnerable hearts and minds of children, seeks cash

11/30/11, "The worst kind of ugly climate propaganda: David Suzuki targets kids at Christmas in the name of climate change," Anthony Watts, Watts up with that

"Here’s the popup message solicitation you get when you visit the website for the first time:

Climate change is melting the North Pole and it’s no longer safe for Santa and his Workshop. So our dear old friend is packing up the sleigh to find somewhere else to live.

You can help! Move your mouse over this website to find gifts you can buy Santa to help him set up a temporary Workshop and protect the North Pole for his return.

Of course, you’re savvy enough to know we won’t be sending actual gifts to Santa. You will receive a tax receipt for 100% of your purchase and proceeds will be used by the David Suzuki Foundation to support our critical work to protect nature and the environment from threats like climate change.

Buying these green gifts and personalized ecards on behalf of hard-to-buy-for friends or relatives on your holiday list is a great way to show you’re thinking of them — and the planet!

Act now to help Santa!

Sincere thanks,
The David Suzuki Foundation

This is nothing more than a thinly veiled revenue generator for the foundation.

No shame, no scruples, just send money. Is it any wonder informed people are doubting the climate change issue when presented with crap like this?

h/t to Mike Bromley in Canada who writes:

Canadian geneticist-turned-environmentalist David Suzuki targeted children in his latest outburst of emotionally-charged enviro-gab, this time scaring the fun out of Christmas by warning that Santa’s home was melting. In a post-black-Friday period of climate-ethical circus generation, this takes the cake. This is beyond reprehensible."


Above, Chinese children taught to cheer Mao and Stalin.

Santa Global Warming book cover propaganda for children via Newsbusters, Amazon, 2008

via Climate Depot

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Emerging star in ClimateGate 2.0 NY Times Andrew Revkin then reporter now blogger for the most influential 'newspaper' in the world

In 1981, the NY Times put global warming activist James Hansen on its front page. 1/10/2007, PBS Interview, James Hansen, item about one third down page in response to comment about the Reagan administration.

11/29/11, "My Favorite Climategate 2.0 Email (so far)," Coyote blog

"I am working on a summary post of the new batch of climategate emails, but this is perhaps my favorite. It is written to Andy Revkin, nominally a reporter for the NY Times but revealed by the new emails to be pretty much the unpaid PR agent of Michael Mann and company. Over and over, emails from Mann and his cohorts
  • get Revkin to write the articles they want,
drop quotes from skeptics from articles,
  • and in general coordinate communications policy.

Anyway, one climate scientist writes Revkin this note [Date, Feb. 13, 2004]

I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global warming and an ice age at the same [time] creates a real public relations problem for us.

Amazing that this actually had to be said.

Update: Revkin is currently an opinion blogger but at the time of the emails he was supposed to be a news reporter at the NYT. (New York Times)"


A 2007 Revkin ClimateGate 2.0 email:

11/29/11, "2007, Revkin to Santer et al: "sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort "," by Tom Nelson

"Did Revkin think of himself as part of "the team" fighting for their "cause"?
2007 climategate email

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500 To:,,

From: Andrew Revkin Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort

hi, for moment please do not distribute or discuss. trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction with this at all.



In 1981, the NY Times put global warming activist James Hansen on its front page:

1/10/2007, PBS Interview, James Hansen, item about one third down page in response to comment about the Reagan administration:

"Well, I think the reason it was sensitive was the fact that it got attention. In 1981 the paper that we wrote in Science -- that predicted that the world would be getting warmer over the 1980s and that by the year 2000 you begin to see loss of sea ice and eventually you have opening of the fabled Northwest Passage -- that article was reported on the front page of The New York Times by Walter Sullivan."


In 1988 the NY Times championed activist James Hansen's Senate appearance:

6/24/1988, "Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate," NY Times, by Phillip Shabecoff

"The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution,

  • a space agency scientist reported today.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ''greenhouse effect.'' But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ''magic number'' that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ''It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.'' ...

If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

Dr. Hansen, director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, testifed before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond. But they cautioned that it was not possible to attribute a specific heat wave to the greenhouse effect, given the still limited state of knowledge on the subject. ...

Some scientists still argue that warmer temperatures in recent years may be a result of natural fluctuations rather than human-induced changes.

Several Senators on the Committee joined witnesses in calling for action now on a broad national and international program to slow the pace of global warming."


Hansen should not have remained on the payroll of the US taxpayer in his role as a radical activist. In this role he became rich by collecting millions of dollars in prizes and awards around the globe. The NY Times is a powerful partner. ed.

via Climate Depot

Penn State engaged in man-caused 'climate ethics' discussions with Communist Chinese which is unfortunate on several levels

Is it 'ethical' for someone who campaigns against fossil fuels to take funding from someone who made his money in a fossil fuel company now owned by Schlumberger? The Communist Chinese must have had a laugh about being taken seriously on 'climate ethics.'

11/21/11, "Chinese University Hosts First Conference in China on Climate Change Ethics," RockBlogs, Penn State, Climate Ethics, Ethical Analysis of Climate Science and Policy, Donald A. Brown

"Nanjing University of Science Information and Technology in collaboration with the Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State University organized the first conference on climate change ethics in China that was held on October 29 and 30 in Nanjing. This conference examined the ethical dimensions of climate change as well as other economic, legal, and policy issues entailed by climate change policy-making. Papers presented included nine papers on climate change ethics, eight papers on climate change policy and law, and eight papers on social and economic issues entailed by climate change.

This conference was particularly notable because both Chinese and non-Chinese participants appeared to agree that climate change must be understood to be essentially an ethical matter that can only be solved through reliance on some common global values. To this writer's knowledge, this was the first conference in China that expressly explored the ethical views of Chinese and Western ethicists about climate change.

The papers presented at the conference included the following:

A. Climate Change Ethics And Philosophy

1. The Practical Significance of Understanding Climate Change As An Ethical Problem (Donald A. Brown, Penn State University)
2. The Border Between Climate Change And Libertarianism (Jun Chen, Hubei University)
3. Thoughts On Climate Change And The Conflict Of National Interest (Gang Guo, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
4. Review On The Climate Change Ethics (Jun Shi, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
5. Philosophical Review On Climate Change (Fan Chen & Guozhang Liu, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
6. Analysis On The Root Of Climate Crisis Through Biological Marxism (Feng Xu, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
7. Possibilities Of Global Cooperation On Climate-the Dilemma Of Nation-State Theory And World Theory (Fangxing Ye, Hehai University)
8. Climate Justice And Climate Ethics (Rongnan Zhang, Department of Philosophy-East China Normal University)
9. Climate Change: Ethical Dimension On Sustainable Development (Siwei Dai, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

B. Section Two: Climate Change Policy And Law

1. Discussion, Debate, And Democratic Negotiation: The Choice Of Tools In Global Climate Change Policy Making (Xiangrong Su, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
2. Adaptation To Climate Change Impacts: Challenges To China's Environmental Law And Changing Directions (Xiangbai He, Law School-Western Sydney University)
3. Response And Choice To The Climate Legislation And Regulation Under Multiple Pursuits Of Benefits (Xiaodan Song & Zhangjun Pang, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
4. Research On Regulation Of Atmospheric Property Under Climate Change (Shibin Wu, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
5. Study On The Legislation Of Human-impact Climate Change (Zhi Qiao, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
6. The Inspiration of "Others Theory" Of Ethics On Contemporary Public Policy (Xi Wang, China mMeteorology Bureau)
7. A Brief Analysis On The Cooperation On Climate Study Across Taiwan Straits In The Last 60 Years (Suhua Yong & Xiangping Liu, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
8. Research On The NGOs' Influence In Coping With Climate Change (Meili Tang, Huijuan Shi, & Fengjiang Cheng, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

Section Three: Economic And Social Management In Climate Change

1. Climate Change And Ecocities In China: Challenges And Opportunities To Building A Sustainable And Equitable Society (Erich W.Schienke)
2. Efficiency And Reduction In China: Carbon Tax Or Sectoral Cap And Trade? (Rongxiang Cao, Central Bureau of Translation)
3. Energy Saving In China: Tax, Control On Total Amount In Each Department, Or Trade? (Rongxiang Cao, Central Bureau of Translation)
4. Democratic Governance: Probe On The Democratic Mode In Coping With Climate Change (Zhijiang Li, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
5. Change Of The "Leadership" Of Global Environmental Control: Case Study In Canada (Laihui Xie, Central Bureau of Translation)
6. Path Selection Of China's Ecological Regulation Construction Through Ecological Civilization (Fen Sun & Jie Cao, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
7. Climate Change, Eco-system, And A Sustainable Developing Society (Zhangguo Liu, Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy-Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
8. Research On The Factors That Drive Low Carbonization On China's Traditional Manufacturing (Decai Tang & Changshun Li, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
9. Discussion On The Practical necessity And Basic Ideas On China's Ecological Regulation (Fen Sun & Jie Cao, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
10. Analysis Of The Influence Of REDD On Slowing Down China's Climate Change Process (Jichuan Sheng, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)"


3/21/11, "$10 million gift endows dean's chair, ethics institute director," Penn State Live

"In recognition of strong innovative leadership in Penn State's College of the Liberal Arts and the Rock Ethics Institute (REI), Doug and Julie Rock of The Woodlands, Texas, have made two gifts totaling $10 million in honor of the current dean of the College, Susan Welch, and the current and founding REI director, Nancy Tuana. The first $5 million gift will create an endowed dean’s chair in the college and a second $5 million gift supports an endowed directorship in the Institute, which was created by the Rocks with an earlier $5 million gift a decade ago.

Doug is a 1968 psychology graduate of Penn State. For more than 20 years, he served as president, chief executive officer, and chairman of Smith International, a global provider of oil and natural gas exploration and development products and services, which is now part of Schlumberger Limited. Julie is a graduate of Stephen F. Austin State University and a former human resources and management training manager at Smith International."...

via comment to WUWT, see at end of post under 'update', 6/1/2011, "Climate craziness of the week: “ethics requires” linking tornadoes to climate change," Anthony Watts, Watts up with That, references Mr. Brown from Penn State


11/8/11, "China Threatens Massive Venting of Super Greenhouse Gases in Attempt to Extort Billions as UNFCCC Meeting Approaches,"

"China has failed to use any of the windfall revenues from the sale of HFC-23 credits to address emissions of HFC-23 at Chinese plants not covered by the (UN) CDM."


Much more on Communist China and 'climate ethics' from Yale 360 even:

"To offset their own carbon emissions, European companies have been wildly overpaying China to incinerate a powerful greenhouse gas known as hfc 23. And in a bizarre twist, those payments have spurred the manufacture of a harmful refrigerant
  • that is being smuggled into the U.S.
  • and used illegally.
European legislators in Brussels have discovered that the strategy they devised to combat climate change is helping subsidize the economy of their, and America’s, major global competitor — China.

European companies have been overpaying Chinese companies more than 70 times the cost to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas — triflouromethane, or hfc 23, a byproduct of manufacturing a refrigerant that has been banned in developed countries and is being phased out in developing ones.

In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe
  • that are subject to the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been
paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against Europe’s own “green” industries. European concern about this practice was a
  • major source of contention during last week’s climate negotiations in Cancun, as the UN
  • attempted to defend the integrity of the
  • multi-billion dollar global carbon offset market.

And in an odd twist, the incentives offered through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) also appear to be stimulating production of an ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that has been landing in the U.S. black market.

  • Investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Customs and Border Protection have led to the conviction of several smugglers who have illegally imported the ozone-depleting refrigerant, hcfc 22, into the U.S. for sale to trucking companies, supermarkets, automotive supply shops, and other large-scale users of refrigerant gases.
The illegal refrigerant is significantly cheaper than non-ozone-depleting refrigerants permitted in the U.S., a price discrepancy triggered partially by the large overpayments to Chinese firms that have led to an ample supply of hcfc 22 on the international black market.

That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases — bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets flow to European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.
  • “It’s perverse,” says Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. “You have companies which make a lot of money by making more of this gas, and then getting paid to destroy it.”
Two European nonprofits, the Germany-based CDM Watch and the London-based Environmental Investigations Agency, kicked off the controversy when they asserted last summer that European companies were paying dramatically inflated prices for the emissions credits. Companies purchase the credits for about
  • $15 a ton,
while the actual cost for incinerating the gas in China or India is around
  • 20 cents a ton.
More than a billion dollars, the nonprofit groups concluded, have thus far been spent on the credits. Two members of the European Parliament have demanded an inquiry by the European Commission into the
  • “gross misuse of European consumers’ money” in the UN-administered offset system.
European consumers are paying a billion euros to buy something worth less than 100 million euros, says Theodoros Skylakakis, a Greek member of the European Parliament, who, along with Gerbrandy,
  • demanded that the commission begin tightening the rules governing the hfc 23 offsets in the European Trading System. “Some people are getting extremely rich because of a loophole in our Clean Development Mechanism,” says Gerbrandy.
Hfc 23 is, per pound, 11,000 times more potent than CO2 as a contributor to global warming. The
  • European Union has adopted a carbon emissions trading scheme, and more than half of the 474 million tons of emission credits now utilized to offset companies’ emissions are involved in
paying firms in China and elsewhere to destroy hfc 23. Major utilities in Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and Japan rely heavily on these emissions offsets, as do a number of U.S. companies operating in Europe, including Chevron and Conoco Philips. Major U.S. financial houses, such as
  • Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase have significant holdings in the credits linked to the gas.
The greenhouse gas is a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas. And the offset credits paid to Chinese and Indian companies to eliminate the former, according to CDM Watch, have actually stimulated increased production of the latter — the ozone-depleting refrigerant hcfc 22, which is itself a potent greenhouse gas. CDM Watch has compiled records showing that companies in China and India have significantly increased production of hcfc 22 in order to receive funds to incinerate the byproduct gas, hfc 23. Some basic math suggests why: According to the Environmental Investigations Agency,
  • the price for a ton of hcfc 22 fluctuates from $1,000 to $2,000, while that same ton can generate about
  • $5,000 to $6,000 in hfc 23 Clean Development Mechanism credits.

The United Nations Environment Programme reports that from 2004 to 2009, production of the ozone-depleting hcfc 22 refrigerant gas grew from 15 million to 28 million tons,

  • paralleling the evolution of the offset program intended to eliminate its byproduct, hfc 23.
But Hcfc 22 itself is actually the replacement gas for the ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons that have
  • largely been eliminated under the 1989 Montreal Protocol,
a treaty signed by 196 countries to reduce depletion of atmospheric ozone. Hcfc 22 is already illegal in Europe, and is sold in the U.S. only in small quantities strictly licensed by the EPA. Developing countries have until 2030 to phase out hcfc 22 completely.
  • Some of the rapidly increasing production of hcfc 22 is being used in developing countries, where a growing middle class can afford for the first time to purchase products using refrigerants, such as air conditioners. But the illegal refrigerant is increasingly showing up in the U.S. black market.
Over the past year, in an effort dubbed Operation Catch-22, federal investigations have led to several convictions of people smuggling hcfc 22 into the U.S. In one instance, Alex Garrido, president of an import-export firm called Kroy Corporation, was arrested after an Operation Catch-22 team caught him on surveillance tape receiving, storing, and preparing to sell illegal shipments of hcfc 22 from China. Garrido pled guilty and was sentenced in February to two-and-a-half years in prison. In another instance, the St. Louis-based Marcone Company, a wholesale supplier for hardware stores and large construction projects, was accused of violating the Clean Air Act for attempting to sell more than 220,000 pounds of the illegal refrigerant.

Thomas Land, who works in the EPA’s Office of International Negotiations — and who is involved in coordinating diplomatic and enforcement efforts for the Montreal Protocol — says that the UN-administered subsidies to eliminate hfc 23 have led to an oversupply of hcfc 22. And the increasing supply has led to a decreasing price. “Because production is subsidized, the prices are artificially low,” Land says.

This has made the illicit gas far more financially attractive to large-scale users of refrigerants in the United States
  • than the more expensive, non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.

In this way, the European offset payments are setting the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols — the two seminal environmental treaties of our time — on a collision course.

  • China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is at the center of the brewing controversy.
China is host to two-thirds of the 474 million tons of emission reductions that the UN says have resulted from the sale of offsets, according to a team of researchers at Dartmouth College’s Climate Justice Research Project, who have been studying the global offset markets.
  • Overall, 60 cents of every dollar spent on the global carbon markets goes to China;
and 50 of that 60 cents goes to eliminating hfc’s. Of the 19 refrigerant factories receiving credits through the Clean Development Mechanism, 11 are in China, which accounts for 80 percent of the hfc credits. (Another five hfc projects are in India, and one each is in South Korea, Mexico, and Argentina.)
  • European companies and countries have channeled more than a billion dollars into Chinese projects aimed at eliminating hfc’s.
In response to the huge windfall of profits under the scheme, the Chinese government has imposed a
  • 65-percent tax on all corporate profits from emissions reductions schemes.
Over the last five years, the tax revenues have amounted to at least $650 million.

The money is channeled into an arm of the Chinese Ministry of Finance called the CDM Fund.

Though the funds are generated via the Clean Development Mechanism,

As of October, according to the fund’s website, it appears that none of the money had yet been spent. When, and if, those hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, a significant portion is earmarked for the further development of China’s renewable energy industries, including wind and solar power — technologies in which China is already beginning to dominate world markets.

  • We are providing unacceptable subsidies to Chinese industries that are already close to dominating the global market in renewable energy technologies,” says the European Parliament’s Gerbrandy. In other words, to Europe’s — and America’s — competitors.
In the last week of November, CDM Watch and the Environmental Investigations Agency presented their critique to the executive board of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. The central question, according to Eva Filzmoser, program director of CDM Watch, is
  • whether the hfc credits, vital to the functioning of the cap-and-trade system borne of the Kyoto Protocol,
“The gap between the price for the credits and the actual costs for incinerating the gas,” she says,
  • “means we have a huge amount of money not being spent on actually reducing emissions.”
The claim puts the UN in a quandary. It has no power to rescind past credits, even those whose integrity is called seriously into question.
  • Reassessing the validity of credits that account for at least half of the capital now churning into the offsets could set off a chain reaction, challenging the structure and integrity of the global carbon markets.
The International Emissions Trading Agency, representing the world’s carbon traders, has
  • expressed opposition to the changes, stating that the decision be based on “sound environmental and economic analyses of the consequences.”
On Nov. 25, the European Commission proposed that the European Trading System (ETS) no longer accept hfc credits starting in 2013.

  • That proposal awaits approval by the European Parliament and the EU’s Council of Ministers.
If approved, it would put the UN in another quandary: How to assess the real value of the bulk of certified emission reductions already on the market, and how to move forward when the ETS —
  • the world’s biggest market by far for emission credits — will be refusing to accept them in three years?
UN officials declared that they would study the matter, while also issuing another 20 million tons worth of credits for an hfc project, to be used by a consortium of European utilities.

The controversy over hfc’s came to a head at the climate negotiations in Cancun last week. Last Tuesday,
  • Chen Huan, deputy director of China’s CDM Fund, the recipient of the hfc tax revenues, denounced the attempts to reduce the use of hfc credits as “irresponsible,” and attacked the calculations on which they are based as “implausible” and lacking in documentation.
He threatened that Chinese industries would vent hfc gases without government controls if the subsidy program was discontinued, telling Point Carbon News — a market monitoring and news service —
  • that efforts to stop the credits are “not acceptable for China because
  • it deviates from the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.”
The Environmental Investigations Agency and CDM Watch responded by
that the funds already generated through the hfc tax revenues “would be enough to fund the actual cost of HFC-23 destruction
  • in China for at least 50 years,

well beyond the date when HCFCs will be phased out by the Montreal Protocol.”

Meanwhile, money continues to pour into the Chinese CDM Fund, and Operation Catch-22 enforcement agents continue to lay traps for the

  • new generation of ozone gas smugglers. "


'Science' does not exist for man-caused climate change or man caused global warming. Data was thrown away in the 1980's inadvertently. Phil Jones wasn't working there at the time. No calculations can be checked. This came out via FOIA, has been admitted by the climate scientists as described the UK Times article below and in an email following. (The UK Times is now subscription so if one wants to check the 11/29/2009 article below I copied from their site some time ago when it was free, one would have to subscribe).

11/29/09, "Climate change data dumped," TimesOnline UK, by Jonathan Leake

"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.

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 — 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.
  • 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."

Bonus ClimateGate email: a Nobel prize winning "scientist" says he wants to "beat the crap" out of someone for daring to state that loss of historic data undermines integrity of global warming claims (obviously). The angry "scientist" had the view that Phil Jones had "changed the way the world thinks." (Not the job of a scientist, though it can keep the money flowing from hapless taxpayers).
  • To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record. Dear Phil,
  • ...I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted
  • to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
  • The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance -
it changed the way the world thinks about human effects
on climate."...



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.