ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

GREENLAND-NOT MELTING AFTERALL!

     Note the following article by Andrew C. Revkin in (of all places!) The New York Times  (is Hell about to freeze over, too?):

One of the most vivid symbols of global warming used by scientists and campaigners to spur society to curb climate-warming emissions is photography of gushing rivers of meltwater plunging from the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet into the depths.

Recent studies have shown these natural drainpipes, called moulins, can speed up the slow seaward march of the grinding ice by lubricating the interface with bedrock below. The faster that ice flows, the faster seas rise. Now, though, a new Dutch study of 17 years of satellite measurements of ice movement in western Greenland concludes that the speedup of the ice is a transient summertime phenomenon, with the overall yearly movement of the grinding glaciers not changing, and actually dropping slightly in some places, when measured over longer time spans.

     The above-quoted article was apparently published both in the Times' print and on-line editions.  In the online edition, Mr. Revkin--so as not to be politically incorrect, which of course would be a no-no at the Times-- publishes, among other things, these "insigtful" comments by experts on the loss of one of their sturdiest sky-is-falling arguments:

Richard B. Alley, an expert on Greenland’s ice sheet at Penn State, told me it’s still possible that flows of meltwater from surface lakes could start large areas of ice moving seaward, particularly if the melt zones continue to expand inland as they have been doing for years now.

Dr. van de Wal said the picture of what makes Greenland’s ice stable or unstable is still evolving. “This time we do not predict a disaster, but who knows what the next finding will [teach] us,” he said.

(emphases added).

     Shall we say, er, pathetic reasoning if these comments are designed to justify impoverishing society to fight a now-admittedly uncertain "climate change".  Insofar as "who knows what the next finding will [teach] us"--that the global-warming scare is a hoax?

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN WE DO

   I'm constantly amused by those who think transferring a function to government will somehow convert the function into being "better".  For example, many think that health care should be nationalized, or that the oil companies should be nationalized--as if putting health care or oil production into the hands of a person wearing a "government" hat rather than a "private enterprise" hat will somehow make delivery of services "better".   

     Truth be told, the folks who work in government enterprises are just like the rest of us and screw up just as much.  Except that, when a government employee screws up, this affects everybody because the screw-up affects all the taxpayers.  Here's a prime example, as reported in the Sacramento Bee:

State fined for fuel tank lapses

County inspectors say leak-detection system wasn't properly checked.

The state department that looks after the Capitol's emergency underground fuel tank was ordered to pay $93,350 in penalties Wednesday after Sacramento County inspectors cited it for ignoring environmental and hazardous materials regulations.

The court-approved penalty marks the second time in four years that the county's Environmental Management Department cited the state Department of General Services for violating regulations governing the safe operation of underground fuel storage tanks.

***

...when ...inspectors checked the Capitol's underground fuel tank last fall, they found General Services had failed to test its containment systems at least once in three years.

State workers also failed to certify at least once a year that the 1,000-gallon tank's leak-detection system was working. Lastly, they failed to remove water from a secondary containment system, rendering the entire emergency tank's leak-detection system inoperable, the county's violation summary shows.

     Now, all State taxpayers get to help pay the fines assessed. 

     Yet, big-government types want to transfer more and more functions to government-- as if people putting on a "government" worker's hat somehow magically transforms them into being competent.  Incredible.

SHOCK POLL FROM GREAT BRITAIN-MAJORITY DOUBT "CLIMATE CHANGE" IS CAUSED BY HUMANS

     This poll shock from Great Britain:

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

     guardian.co.uk

     If the environmentalists can't sell this stuff in Great Britain, imagine how depressing this must be for them when it comes to considering their sales pitch in the even more-skeptical USA. 

     This is especially the case when you consider that he campaign of fear about "global warming", recognizing the slim evidence for that phenomenon, has now retreated to the use of the euphemism "climate change"-- which, of course, could mean warming, cooling, or really any change at all.  Since the Earth's climate has been changing for eons, resorting to "climate change" as a campaign cry may be arousing suspicions in people that the cry simply represents a stealth attempt to increase government control over our lives.

    

BEWARE THE VINYL SHOWER CURTAIN (OR NOT)

     The website of Seattle TV station KREM (channel 2) reports on a controversy over vinyl shower curtains (is nothing sacred?):

It may the last thing on your mind when you get ready for a shower, but that new shower curtain may bring some unwanted friends into your home.

A study found that more than 100 chemicals are released by some curtains, and some are at levels that violate indoor air safety standards.

"I think what's most surprising was the amount of chemicals that were released into the air when you bring a new shower curtain home," said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of Washington Toxics Coalition.

     On the proverbial other hand, there is this quote from the KREM report:

          "This report is simple scare-mongering. It is a blatant attempt by a well-known pressure group to manipulate consumers and retailers into thinking that shower curtains pose a danger, when they don't. It offers no evidence of actual harm," said Greg Bocchi, Pres., The Vinyl Institute.

     What's next on the chopping block-- new car smell?

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE LIEBERMAN-WARNER "CLIMATE CHANGE" BILL

     Sen. Inhofe (R.-Oka.) has an analysis that will make you think twice about this bill (S. 2191, "America's Climate Security Act of 2007"):

The issue of climate change is now at the forefront of American environmental policy.  While the science behind the causes of recent warming trends has been argued vigorously in the past, the debate over the economic costs of addressing this issue has been relatively quiet until now.  However, on this issue there is little to debate at all. Leaders from both sides of the aisle agree that curbing greenhouse gas emissions will be an expensive endeavor.

***

Lieberman-Warner, if enacted, would likely devastate national and local economies in addition to putting a severe strain on the American family.  The bill would reduce the nation’s Gross Domestic Product by 2.3% by only 2015 as modeled by CRA International.... EPA finds that in 2030, GDP would be reduced by $983 billion and lowered even further by as much as $2.8 trillion in 2050.

***

Under this legislation, America stands to lose millions of jobs.  Greenspan forecasts such a problem, announcing that “cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence.”... Within only seven years of enactment, up to 1.2 million net jobs will be lost....Many of these will be going offshore, where restrictions on emissions are nonexistent, to countries such as China. 

***

Kevin Book, an energy research analyst for FBR Capital Market Corporation testified to the Envuironment and Public Works Committee that not only will consumers be hurt, but the poorest of those will be hurt the worst.  Book stated in reference to S.2191 that “any effort to trigger conservation or environmental stewardship, even if price hikes are mediated through larger enterprises before they reach consumers, will affect the poorest Americans first.... Those who are struggling now to pay their heating bills will suffer under this legislation.    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last year stating that American households would bear the biggest costs of a cap-and-trade bill.

Sen. Inhofe's analysis can be found at this website.  As they say in poker, "read it and weep."

"Leaders told battle to stem global warming slowing"-AP story

     AP, on Yahoo!, reports today, in a dispatch entitled "Leaders told battle to stem global warming slowing":

"KOBE, Japan - The world is losing momentum in the battle against global warming, the U.N. climate chief warned on Saturday, urging environmental ministers from wealthy nations to revive the effort by setting clear targets for reducing greenhouse gases.

***

"The officials from the Group of Eight countries, joined by representatives from other countries including China and other organizations, were to lay the foundations for the upcoming G8 summit in northern Japan in July.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press on the sidelines that he was concerned about stalling momentum behind international talks to forge a global warming pact by December 2009 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Its first phase ends in 2012."

     Stalling momentum?  What a surprise.  Perhaps people don't want to plan themselves into abject poverty by diminishing their lifestyles to appease an unproven science.

     By the way, look at the title of the article and compare the title to the URL-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_as/climate_change.  Detect any incoherence?  The story about "global warming" appears at an URL entitled "climate change".  "Global warming", of course, means warming; "climate change" could mean either warming or cooling.  Can the eco-alarmists at least get their fear-phrases straight?

WAS THIS CAUSED BY SUV'S, TOO?

        Astronomy magazine reports (re Jupiter):

"...a third red spot has appeared next to its cousins — the Great Red Spot and Red Spot, Jr. — in the turbulent jovian atmosphere.

...

The Hubble and Keck images may support the idea that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change, as first proposed in 2004 by Phil Marcus, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The planet's temperatures may be changing by 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, getting warmer near the equator and cooler near the south pole."

Back on September 28, 2005, I posted that Mars is getting warmer (excuse me, "undergoing climate change"--the new catch-all), too.  See right-hand side of this page, "Categories", "Global Warming".  Could it be that this has to do with a cycle of the Sun?

And, if these phenomenon on Mars and Jupiter are Sun-related, is Earth somehow magically immune from the phenomenon--or is "climate change" on our planet a function of Solar climate change and not the man-made activities?

No one, of course, knows.  Nonetheless, many want dramatically to alter our lifestyles and spend trillions of dollars because of our vanity in believing that we can control what may be a naturally ever-changing climate.  Liberals usually deride this type of approach faith as the product of religious fervor.

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO HELP PROMOTE THOSE SOLAR PANELS?

     Some time ago, I posted a report that the manufacturing process to build the supposedly environmentally-friendly Toyota Prius produced a lot of pollution.  In response to that Post, greenies were most angered, pointing out the supposed fallacy in the study that highlighted the pollution.

     Well, here goes another pin to burst the bubble:  China has become a major player in the production of solar panels; however, the production process reportedly produces lethal hazardous waste.  No less than that liberal icon, The Washington Post, reports this in a Sunday, march 9, 2008 story entitled "Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China" (the firms are Chinese).  Excerpts:

GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

"The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.

     Other examples of trade-offs abound-for example, when under government mandate oil companies laced their gasoline with the additive MTBE to clean the air in California, an unintended consequence was to enhance difficult water pollution problems (because MTBE is very difficult to remediate).  In short, like everything else in life, "going green" produces its own unintended consequences.  "Going green" is an attractive platitude; but platitudes are not very helpful in evaluating real-world consequences of any given "green" technology.

EVEN THE COURT ENJOYS NO MOLD IMMUNITY

     AP reports today that:

A federal judge has closed portions of Miami's historic downtown courthouse after a report identified widespread mold infestation and ongoing water leaks, with one part of the basement termed "disgusting" by inspectors.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, the chief judge in Florida's Southern District, said in a memo that parts of the basement that house court records and a stairwell used by judges were being closed until further notice.

RUH-OH: GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE IS EVAPORATING

     Per DailyTech.com:

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

     Maybe the news media would like to republish their multiple stories from the 1970's warning about the coming Ice Age?  See my Post of April 8, 2006 under "Categories:  Global Warming" (right-hand side of this page).