4/23/14,
Tarp on the field in rainy Boston prior to Yankee-Red Sox game Wednesday night. Rain ended in time for game to be played,
final 5-1 Red Sox over Yankees. Erik Boland twitter pic: "
Steady rain at Fenway, supposed to clear by 6 or so."...
In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the notion of "global warming."
.
=========================
.
===========================
.
7/17/12, "U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions — so why aren’t we talking about it?" Grist, David Roberts
"Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is making progress on climate change.
We have cut our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in recent years — 7.7 percent since 2006. U.S. emissions fell 1.9 percent last year and are projected to fall 1.9 percent again this year...
Why isn’t this extraordinary story a bigger deal in U.S. politics?
You’d think Obama would be boasting about it! Turns out, though, it’s a
little awkward for him, since several of the drivers responsible are
things for which
he can’t (or might not want to) take credit....
.
Awkward: that whole recession thing
First off there’s the Great Recession, which flattened electricity demand in 2008. It has never recovered — in fact, in part due to 2011′s mild winter, it has even declined slightly....
For obvious reasons, boasting about the environmental benefits of the recession is not something Obama’s eager to do.
Awkward: frack-o-mania
The second big driver is the glut of cheap natural gas, which is currently trading at the 10-year low of about $3 per million British thermal units. This is absolutely crushing coal, the biggest source of CO2 in the electric sector....
A less significant driver of the switch from coal to natural gas is
the EPA’s long overdue rollout of new or tightened clean-air rules on mercury, SO2 and NOx, and CO2. Those rules may do more work later on down the line when/if natural gas prices rise again, but for now the best analysis
[PDF] shows that natural gas is doing most of the work killing coal....
Thus: silence in the political world."...
=====================================
US CO2 emissions are expected to decline even further:
4/21/12, "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com
"As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade."
=============================
Added: CO2 doesn't cause global warming to begin with per 30 year peer reviewed published study, Jan. 1980-Dec. 2011. CO2 significantly lags global air and water temperatures, ie, doesn't cause warming:
.
Jan. 2013, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,“ Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humluma, b, 
, 
,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
"Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures
we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the
period January 1980 to December 2011....
“Fig. 1. Monthly global
atmospheric CO2“
"In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets:
1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2
data,
2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data,
3) GISS surface air
temperature data,
4) NCDC surface air temperature data,
5) HadSST2 sea
surface data,
6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series,
7) CDIAC
data on release of anthropogene CO2, and
8) GWP data on
volcanic eruptions....
Changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for
CO2
lagging
11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature,
9.5–10 months t
o global surface air temperature, and
about 9 months to
global lower troposphere temperature.
The correlation between changes in
ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
.
=====================
Note: The CO2 graph above from the 30 year peer reviewed study originally appeared on the website but isn't there as of 4/24/14. Perhaps it's only accessible for a fee now. As to the US CO2 industry, both political parties have been in on it since the beginning. George HW Bush even hired a former WWF executive to head the US EPA. Before most people had heard of climate scientists, Bush established the imaginary CO2 danger industry by proclamation (Sec. 204, #4 below) which incites hatred against allegedly greedy Americans and permanently attaches US taxpayer earnings to no-strings global warming endeavors around the world. George HW Bush institutionalized global warming ‘action’ via the “U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990.” "Human causes" are mentioned throughout (Introduction, Sec. 2, Sec. 101, Sec. 204) as part of the "problem" for which endless US taxpayer cash must flow around the world and for which "international protocols" should be established. Bush ordered 13 federal agencies to tackle climate "change" (Sec. 102). The "threat" of "global climate change" is cited in Sec. 108, subhead c:.
"An Act To require the establishment of a United States Global Change
Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change,
including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes
on the environment, to promote discussions toward international protocols
in global change research, and for other purposes."...
"Sect. 2, Definitions:
4. "Global change research" means study, monitoring, assessment, prediction,
and information management activities to describe and understand--
A. the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes
that regulate the total Earth system;
B. the unique environment that the Earth provides for life;
C. changes that are occurring in the Earth system; and
D. the manner in which such system, environment, and changes are
influenced by human actions;"...
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress makes the following findings:
- Industrial, agricultural, and other human activities, coupled with
an expanding world population, are contributing to processes of global
change
that may significantly alter the Earth habitat within a few human
generations.
Such human-induced changes, in conjunction with natural fluctuations,
may lead to significant global warming and thus alter world climate
patterns and increase global sea levels. Over the next century, these
consequences could adversely affect world agricultural and marine production,
coastal habitability, biological diversity, human health, and global
economic and social well-being.
The release of chlorofluorocarbons and other stratospheric ozone-depleting
substances is rapidly reducing the ability of the atmosphere to screen
out harmful ultraviolet radiation, which could adversely affect human
health and ecological systems.
Development of effective policies to abate, mitigate, and cope with
global change will rely on greatly improved scientific understanding
of global environmental processes and on our ability to distinguish
human-induced from natural global change....
(b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this title is to provide for development and
coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program
which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict,
and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change....
Sec. 108, Relation to other authorities...
c) EFFECT ON FEDERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS.--Nothing in this title shall
be construed, interpreted, or applied to preclude or delay the planning
or implementation of any Federal action designed, in whole or in part, to address the threats of
stratospheric ozone depletion or global climate
change....
Sect. 204. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH INFORMATION OFFICE.
4. Promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;"...
======================
George HW Bush EPA Administrator William Reilly returned to WWF after Bush was replaced by Clinton. In 2007, Reilly was involved in the "largest leveraged buyout in history." Scroll to section 4.5, about 1/3 down page:
"4.5, "State
Actions That Would Have Increased GHG Emissions: Texas"
"On February 26,
2007, in a deal endorsed by NRDC and Environmental Defense, TXU Energy’s board
of directors approved a bid to sell the company to private equity firms in the
largest leveraged buyout in history. The projected power plants will be cut to
3 from 11, which “will prevent 56 million tons of annual carbon emissions,” TXU
said. William Reilly, chairman emeritus of WWF and former EPA Administrator,
will join the TXU board"...via NYUGlobalLaw.org/GlobaLex
========================
Bush EPA chief William Reilly represented the US at the 1992 Rio climate summit. Following from transcript of 1992 Bush press conference in Rio after signing UN Agenda 21:
.
6/13/1992, President George H. W. Bush News Conference after signing UN Agenda 21 agreement in Rio De Janeiro at UN Earth Summit, presidency.ucsb.edu
"The President. Well, let me first express
my thanks and congratulations to President Collor and the Brazilian
people and to all responsible for this Conference for their hospitality,
for their tremendous success in hosting the Earth summit....
We've signed a
climate convention. We've asked others to join us in presenting action
plans for the implementation of the climate convention. We've won
agreement on forest principles. We found a warm reception among the G - 7
and many developing countries to our Forests for the Future initiative.
Many U.S. proposals on oceans and public participation on the
importance of economic instruments and free markets were included in
this mammoth Agenda 21 document and the Rio Declaration.
Let me
be clear on one fundamental point. The United States fully intends to be
the world's preeminent leader in protecting the global environment. We
have been that for many years. We will remain so....
So with no further ado, I believe, Tom [Tom Raum, Associated Press], you have the first question, sir....
Q. Mr. President...you set a January 1st target
for another meeting of the Conference to discuss global warming. You've
set a lot of deadlines for Congress that haven't been heeded. Your
proposal yesterday wasn't particularly well-received by the other
nations. Why do you think that that January 1st deadline will be heeded
any more than your congressional deadlines?
The President. I
don't think there's any comparison because I think the G - 7 nations and
the developed nations want to meet the commitments that they've signed
up for. So I've not found that it wasn't received well at all. In fact,
Bill Reilly told me it was well-received. And we will be there with
specific plans....
I think the Third World and others are
entitled to know that the commitments made are going to be commitments
kept.
Brit
[Brit Hume, ABC News].
Q. Mr. President, you
and members of your administration feel that you came here with a good
record on the environment and a good case to make for the positions
you've taken. If that's so, sir, how is it that the words, remarks of
your critics seem to so dominate the atmosphere?
The President.
Well, I don't know. I guess it's because all the banks that weren't
robbed today don't make news. When Americans criticize America outside
of America, that seems to make news. The positive accomplishments I
think should make the news, and I maintain that we have the best
environmental record in the world. And I think the people I talked to
yesterday certainly would concede that we have been world leaders....
What dominates is the protest, not the fact
that there was a great, warm reception along the way.
Q. Well, if I could follow up, sir -- --
The President. Yes.
Q.
-- -- you, in one remark you made, and members of your administration
have indicated that there are other nations here, some of whose
officials were critical of your positions, who are in no position
themselves, or their countries are in no position, to meet the terms of
the climate change treaty, for example, and yet they were privately
critical of you. And you suggested that that was so. Would you care to
elaborate on who they were and what they -- --
The President. No, I don't think I suggested that at all. What I'm saying is let's go forward.
Q. Do you think they're glad that you had taken the position that you have taken?
The
President. Well, I think most are. I think most people are glad that
we've taken this position to go forward. I was very pleased,
incidentally, with the remarks by Chancellor Kohl, by Brian Mulroney;
had a good talk with the Prime Minister of Japan before getting here;
I'm most appreciative of John Major for what he said. So I think there's
not only understanding but support for American positions....
Developing Nations
Q.
Yes, Patricia Walsh, United Press International, a slightly little bit
longer question for you, Mr. President. Some respected environmentalists
here at the Earth summit say that poverty leads to many of the
environmental problems and that poverty in developing nations is
perpetuated by unending foreign debt and an unfair trade balance that
funnels money from the south to the north. They criticize the Earth
summit and wealthy nations like the United States for not focusing on
these issues here. How would you respond to that criticism, please?
The
President. I would take great credit for the fact that the United
States has taken the leadership role, a unique one that's been
well-received, in debt-for-equity swaps or forgiveness of debt or
debt-for-environmental swaps. And I think that shows that we are
sensitive to the problems of the Third World in terms of the economy....
Yes, John [John Cochran, NBC News].
Environmental Policy
Q.
A couple of questions about your wish back in the '88 campaign to be
the environmental President....Given the opposition of environmental groups, can
you still campaign as the environmental President, and will you?
The
President. Well, I think so -- and for the very reasons that the man
standing next to me, who has superb environmental credentials, has made
over and over again here. You cannot go to the extreme. And yes, I do
have to be concerned about the American worker, about taxes, about a lot
of things like that; a President must be concerned. But I think we have
an outstanding environmental record.
Let me just click off some
of it for you: The Clean Air Act, and that was ours. We did it. We
needed the Democrats' support, and we got it done. It is the most
forward-looking piece of legislation that any country has in place.
We've
got a national energy strategy that emphasizes alternate fuels and
conservation and all of this part of it. We've got a forestation program
that is second to none. I'd like to see the Congress move forward with
my plan to plant a billion trees a year, and we're going to keep pushing
on that.
We've done what's right environmentally on drilling,
putting the sensitive, environmentally sensitive areas off bounds. We've
done that in the Florida Keys, for example, and off of Big Sur.
We
have over a billion dollars in new lands, and our parks, forests,
wildlife refuges, have all been added to. So we have a good stewardship
of the land.
We took the leadership in phasing out CFC's, and I
think that is a very important environmental leadership role by the
United States. Our budget for EPA is up considerably, our Environmental
Protection Agency.
So I think along the lines we've done very,
very well. And I think that's a case I will be proud to take to the
American people.
Q. Can I follow up with one, sir?
The President. Yes, please.
Q.
Sir, you talk about not wanting to jeopardize jobs by being overly
conscious of environmental concerns, but you've never really been very
specific about which jobs you would save with your policies, for
example, on global warming and the biodiversity treaty.
The
President. I will give you an example, and that was on the owl decision.
There what was clearly at stake was some 30,000 jobs in the Northwest.
That decision was met with some opposition by certain environmentalists,
but it was a good decision. Some people regrettably will still be put
out of work, but not near as many as if that arrangement had not been
achieved....
Environmental Policy
Q.
Mr. President, on the way back home today you will be flying for some
two to three hours over the Amazon forests. Do you believe your
200-something U.S. million dollars of your Forests for the Future
initiative will make a difference?
The President. Well, I
certainly think it will, and most people here seem to think it will,
yes. I salute President Collor for the steps he is taking in terms of
preservation of that great forest. You see, we've got a good
record in terms of forest policy. We're doing something about below-cost
timber sales in 10 national forests. We've signed this Tongass Timber
Reform Act, which is in a very sensitive -- below-cost timber sales in
an extraordinarily sensitive American rain forest.
So I think
we've got a good record. I'm very pleased with the way that forestry
initiative has been received here. I noticed that it was singled out by
several of the leaders in their speech yesterday. And it's those
positive things that I think just emphasize once again the U.S. role of
leadership in the environment....
U.N. Conference on Environment
Q.
Mr. President, in following up this Conference, what do you think
you'll be doing in the way of supporting an international organization
to oversee the work that has come out of this Conference?
The
President. I think one of the main things we're going to do is go
forward with this January 1st date in order to present detailed plans to
meet the climate change commitments. We're pretty far along on that,
and we're prepared to share with others. Bill Reilly will be actively
involved in that. Any commitment we make here will be kept, and so we
have a broad agenda to follow through on.
We forget that there
are many, many commitments, some involving funds, some not, being made
here at this Conference.
And the EPA leadership will be extraordinarily
busy in getting specific now to follow them up. I'm excited about that
because I think our leadership is up to it, and I think others will
welcome it....
Thank you all very much." via Democrats Against UN Agenda 21
========================
Bush EPA Chief Reilly writes about 1992 Rio climate agreement and Agenda 21:
Sept.-Oct. 1992, "The Road from Rio: The success of the Earth Summit depends on how well we follow through on its principles and programs,"
EPA Journal, by William K. Reilly,
www2.epa.gov
.
"Agenda 21.
This was perhaps the most remarkable
achievement of the conference: an ambitious, 900-page action plan for
protecting the atmosphere, oceans, and other global resources. Many of
the ideas--community right-to-know, compiling information about toxic
releases, environmental impact statements--originated in the United
States. Agenda 21 represents an extraordinary new global consensus on
standards against which to measure the environmental performance of
governments. No doubt the press, non-governmental groups, and the
business community will mine these documents for years to come. The
human rights commitments of the 1970s and 1980s, the Helsinki Accords,
and others, offer a model for how committed nongovernmental interests
can confer authority on moral obligations and translate them into new
policies."
.
===============================
In 1995, Bush EPA Chief William Reilly says Bush didn't get credit he deserved from the environmental community. Greens weren't going to give him credit anyway, but he couldn't sell his accomplishments too much for fear of losing the business community in 1992 election:
"The White House, particularly, was highly ineffective in its public
relations in dealing with the environment. It was as though they were
ambivalent about wanting credit. On the one hand they resented when the
Administration was criticized by environmentalists, but on the other
hand they didn't want to claim too much for our environmental
initiatives lest they upset the business community and the more
conservative elements of the constituency. The White House simply never
resolved how it wished to present itself on the environment." (Subhead, "EPA and governmental groups," 4th parag. in Reilly remarks)
===============================
The "climate industry" is about 3 things, none of which are climate, per Obama-Biden climate adviser Nigel Purvis:
1/13/12, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv
"Ironically the 'cap and trade' idea that underwrites the global carbon market was originally the brainchild of US Republicans [via George Bush #1]. But this changed because of what one senior US climate negotiator at Kyoto described as a collection of “toxic” ingredients.
.
“There are three issues:
–
that are inflammatory in their own right,” Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington."...
Nigel Purvis, is with Climate Advisers consultancy in Washington."...
.
.
