Global Warming Denialists Turning on Themselves as Their Climate Change Titanic Sinks

I did a post a while back about a "Climate Skeptics Conference" held in New York City. According to Andrew Revkin, writing in the Scotland in Sunday newspaper, it may just have been a last hurrah for the global warming denialist industry.

Case against climate change melting away

For example, from the linked article:

"But large corporations such as Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 (£414,000) to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.

Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support "to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner"."

And:

"But Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said that the experts giving talks were "a shrinking collection of extremists" and that they were "left talking to themselves"."

And this long piece from the article above:

"But Lindzen also criticised widely publicised assertions by other sceptics that variations in the sun were driving temperature changes in recent decades. To attribute short-term variation in temperatures to a single cause, whether human-generated gases or something else, was erroneous, he said.

Speaking of the sun's slight variability, he said: "Acting as though this is the alternative (to blaming greenhouse gases] is asking for trouble."

S Fred Singer, a physicist often referred to by critics and supporters alike as the dean of climate contrarians, said: "As a physicist, I am concerned that some sceptics, a very few, are ignoring the physical basis.

"There is one who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which goes against actual data," Singer said, adding that other sceptics wrongly contend that "humans are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2."

There were notable absences from the conference this year. Russell Seitz, a physicist from Cambridge, Massachusetts, delivered a speech at last year's meeting. But Seitz, who has lambasted environmental campaigners for distorting climate science, now warns that the sceptics are in danger of doing the same thing.

The most strident advocates on either side of the global warming debate, he said, are "equally oblivious to the data they seek to discount or dramatise".

John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who has long publicly questioned projections of dangerous global warming, most recently at a House committee hearing last month, said he had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for "guilt by association"."

As we have seen, many of the global warming denialists have been pushing the very "party line" that their lauded "shills and charlatans" (plus, of course, the real scientists with real concerns) are now criticizing as very misguided ideologically based opinions.

Keep in mind, this was at the "Skeptics Conference" and these are the words of the "skeptics" themselves. Apparently skeptics are beginning their "every man for himself" race to the lifeboats as their Titanic sinks (perhaps after hitting a melting iceberg).

White House Favors National Fuel Standard

The saga continues. During the Bush administration California passed a law that would require a 30% reduction in emissions by 2016. The idea was to encourage burning of less fuel or burning it more efficiently, whouch would improve gasoline mileage and reduce emissions. The law would also speed the entry of electric vehicles into the marketplace. The overall goal is reduce CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change.

But the California law requires a waiver from federal law to proceed. EPA during the Bush administration refused to grant that waiver and the newly installed Obama administration instructed EPA to rereview the waiver application. Many thought this would mean that the waiver would be granted and California could proceed.

As always, however, the issue is more complicated than the oversimplified picture ideologues in various camps would have you believe. In fact, if California proceeds it is likely to be followed by about a dozen other states. But many states would not follow suit. This would result in a patchwork of emissions standards that makes it very difficult for manufacturers to adjust their practices. It is especially difficult for the auto industry, which as we all know is undergoing some trying times.

Meanwhile, there is a less stringent federal regulation in the works that would stimulate the vehicle design changes needed to satisfy a congressionally ordered fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2010. That amounts to about a 40% improvement over current industry performance. Both President Obama and auto industry representatives indicated this past week that a single national standard for fuel efficiency would present a more manageable system. The goal would be to address both California's desire for more stringent standards and the need for consistent standards across the distribution area. Otherwise there is the potential of having to produce cars meeting different standards depending on where they are shipped (or driven post consumer purchase as individuals relocate around the country).

Congress, EPA, the President, and industry are all contributing to the debate. After the Congressional hearing last week it was still unclear which direction legislation would go, though the single standard seems a more efficient way to address the issue.

Unintended Consequences - Ethanol is Up/Ethanol is Down

News came this week that USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson won't decide for several months the tricky issue of how much ethanol should be blended into gasoline. EPA is in discussions with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation, who are coordinating on the possible raising of the amount of ethanol blended in the US supply, all while trying to agree on a policy for regulating vehicle emissions.

Why is this important? Well, the current US standard is that ethanol can be 10% of the gasoline mixture (whereas in Brazil the mandate is 25% ethanol, mostly from sugar cane). Current law in the US requires that 11.1 billion gallons of biofuels (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be used this year in accordance with the Renewable Fuels Standard. But ethanol demand has fallen because the high prices of gasoline made people drive less, which in turn helped to decrease the price of gas. Add in the large subsidies given to ethanol producers to ramp up production a year or two ago and the now the worldwide recession, and ethanol producers are suddenly operating at about 85% capacity and struggling to pay the bills. One company, VeraSun Energy Corp., the second largest US ethanol maker, actually filed for bankruptcy protection late last year. Raising the ethanol standard would help keep ethanol use high even as fuel consumption drops.

Meanwhile, other issues have been raised as to whether corn-ethanol is a good fuel option or not. The increased use of corn for fuel rather than food had wide-ranging impacts not only on direct costs of eating corn, but also on the costs of beef, milk and other foods that rely on corn as feed. Given that ethanol actually reduces fuel-economy, and the technological difficulties of fuel delivery systems (e.g., corrosion of iron parts, internal wear, and spark generation), some have argued that it is not a viable alternative to gasoline. Yet others point to its advantages as a renewable resource and note that non-food vegetation (i.e., cellulosic) ethanol is being developed, as will innovations to automobile and other fuel delivery systems. All innovations necessitate further downstream innovations (and subsequently, jobs), they say.

What this means, of course, is that we need to be aware of the interconnectedness of our technologies. Changes to one can impact others. So merely switching from one fuel source to another isn't enough - we need to be aware of all the other impacts that such a switch might necessitate.