//

Can carbon trading help big polluters reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

(CNN) — Carbon trading — with its mix of free-market principles and government regulation — holds global appeal as a way for businesses to reduce emissions. But lack of a global market for carbon trade and questions over surveillance and accounting for pollution offsets raises questions about its viability.

The factors complicating accurate carbon-trading reportage begins with the “product” — in this case the absence of an invisible gas. Adding to the intangibility is the crediting of businesses for projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

“They are a tricky beast — an environmental commodity is not a natural private good, like a tube of toothpaste or a haircut,” said Michael Gillenwater, dean of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, in an interview earlier this year.

“You can just look in the mirror to tell if a haircut is a good product… in carbon trading, it’s just a piece of paper, a record in a database and the trust that it really does represent a truthful accounting of emissions,” he said.

Carbon trading uses a stick-and-carrot approach to reduce the gases that cause global warming. The stick: Governments cap total emissions and require pricey permits and hefty fines for emissions. The carrot: Industry finds ways to reduce emissions to decrease costs and with leftover polluting allocations sell to the highest bidder on the open market.

For carbon trading to really work, however, the market needs to be worldwide, said Louis Redshaw of Barclays Capital.

“The U.S. is close, not close enough, but getting closer to implementing cap and trades. Japan is doing the same thing.,” Redshaw said. “South Korea, even, are going to follow what Japan does.”

Carbon trading legislation — facing party opposition and energy industry pressure –recently failed to pass the Australian Senate earlier this month, causing a political fracas for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the ruling Labor government. The government plans to reintroduce the legislation in February.

The European Union is home to the biggest emissions trading system, but that has been subject to complaints that too many pollution permits have been issued.

“Carbon trading on its own can’t save the planet,” said Robert Rabinowitz of the European Climate Exchange. “Carbon trading can help make the process cheaper, but only if the politicians set sufficiently ambitious targets.”

This is a worry since the carbon trading market as pollution joins the ranks of other tradable commodities such as coal and natural gas.

The global market for carbon trading was “vulnerable to Enron type accounting scandals” because of the lack of global standards on emissions accounting and qualified professionals to account for those changes, according to the “2009 Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Workforce Needs Assessment Survey” released earlier this year.

“Any crediting involving projections are inherently uncertain and vulnerable to manipulation by the unscrupulous,” said the report, a global survey of industry professionals and policy makers by Greenhouse Gas Management Institute and Sequence Staffing.

CNN’s Jim Boulden and Kevin Voigt contributed to this repor

I do not want to be overwhelmed by all I see that is  global warming, but as a new and massive iceberg approaches Australia and the Copenhagen Talks start to wind down I am more frequently humming in my head an old REM tune,”Its The End Of The World As We Know It.”

Life when I was young was a simple thing. As an adult there were dramas of my own making (mostly) and I survived all of them.

But I have children and I really believe global warming will change their world for the worst.

Many of my friends say what is the point of worrying about something you cannot change. I do understand where they are coming from. Like global warming I cannot change, especially at  this late stage. I can only hope for the best for my children and fight like I am inside a paper bag until I can no longer fight and watch a few birds and bears along the way.

Of course I have my share of laments but I can let the laments roll of my back the way I cannot do so as it concerns global warming.

Matt

The Late Night With David Letterman Show had Dr. Jim Hansen on as a guest last night and Letterman revealed his pessimistic bias about a climate that he sees as changing for the worse, and Letterman seems to know a lot about climate change.

He plugged Hansen’s new book entitled, “Storms Of My Grandchildren.” Letterman got laughs out of the audiance saying Hansen’ s new book should be retitled “We Are Screwed.” It was obvious that Letterman cared about the prospective impacts of global warming. He said it will have little impact on him but global warming will impact his 5 year old son.

I am in the same boat. Letterman then brought up pine bark beetle devastation of forests to Hansen and they both mentioned the potential carbon that will be released by wildfires in dead forests.

Science mavin Sara Palin said that Al Gore would probably not stoop low enough to debate her on global warming. I hope that Gore never debates  Palin on global warming…it will only give her and her awful and politicized view of an issue that has no party and is real, credibility…a credibility Palin does not deserve!!!!!!!

Matt

So much is going on as it pertains to a changing climate.

Matt

Dear Friends and Family,

A quick dispatch from Copenhagen, reflecting on the Nobel Peace Prize
and future generations:
http://www.grist.org/article/accept-it-in-oslo-earn-it-in-copenhagen

If folks want to follow what’s happening here through the eyes of the
youth leaders from around the world, check: http://youthclimate.org, and
if you want to do something to help, start or join a candlelight vigil
this weekend: http://www.350.org/weekend

I’ve begun to use a mailing service for these periodic updates, so feel
free to unsubscribe if you don’t want to get them any longer.
(Unsubscribe:
http://go.madmimi.com/opt_out?fe=1&pact=429693640&amx=59442200 )

All best,
Billy

Unbelievable, but this is actually happening to the northern part of the Yellowstone Ecosystem also and it will impact both bear species in Yellowstone, Clark’s Nutcrackers, red squirrels and other species. Global climate change at it’s worst as far as I am concerned.

Matt

CHEYENNE — A beetle epidemic that’s killing trees across the Rocky Mountain region has taken an especially heavy toll on whitebark pine trees in the Yellowstone ecosystem, according to preliminary findings of a recent aerial survey.

The six weeks of flights this summer covered 2.5 million acres of whitebark forests in 21 mountain ranges in the 22-million-acre Yellowstone ecosystem. The survey involved the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council.

Up to now, aerial surveys conducted by the Forest Service have focused primarily on documenting beetle damage among the lower-elevation species.

We knew the impact was huge. But we really didn’t have a good feel of the true extent,” said Jesse Logan, a retired forest service beetle expert who helped coordinate the survey.

Beetles have all but wiped out some whitebark forests, including along the east side of Yellowstone National Park, researchers said.

I must admit that I am a little blown away that Sara Palin’s comments on climate change have created quite the stir. She, pro oil all the way, has even traded barbs with Gore on the subject. It seems unbelievable to me that a teabagger like Palin would even be given the time of day on global climate change…Palin is most famous for being a quitter in a tough world so when the road gets tougher on climate change,which it will, Palin will quit there as well.  This part of an email tickled my funny bone. Please read.

Matt

…and what their implications are for our understanding of global warming the facts have begun to bubble up to the surface. Of course, there is still a lot of noise out there, such as today’s Washington Post op/ed by noted climate scientist Sarah Palin, but the signal to noise ratio has improved in recent days.

Believe it there is still a bunch of skepticism out their on the subject of global warming and it is politicised now and the science of global warming has not helped the science with “climategate”.

Those of us who believe global climate change has the potential to overwhelm humanity within a century if nothing is done have to refight a battle that I, for one, thought we had won…but there it is!!!and it is a self inflicted wound that was made by trying to do what the skeptics do so well…inflate something that needs no inflation!!!

The thought comes to mind of a boxer fighting a fight with one arm tied behind his back as the boxer tries to win the fight…what analogy comes to your mind? This amounts to real frustration; a pain that has to be pushed through.

Matt

Article by MICHAEL TOTTY
When we recently ran an article about ideas on ways to cool the planet, we were swamped with emails from people who were impassioned in their belief that global warming is a myth. It was striking that so many people held views at odds with what is apparently the consensus among climate scientists, as well as policy makers.

That consensus, simply put, states that the planet is warming, and that most of the temperature rise is very likely due to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity. Barring a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, the 21st century will see more frequent heat waves, intense storms and, in the tropics, declines in rainfall.

So, what do the skeptics say? In a nutshell, they argue that the warming in the past century has been modest and that human activities’ contribution to the warming has been minimal; there is no crisis. Here are some of their major points—and the response by those who believe in global warming.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: The Earth isn’t warming—at least not to any extent that could actually be called a “crisis.” And some data even suggest that the Earth is getting colder.

The planet may have grown warmer over the course of the 20th century. But that warming stopped more than 10 years ago, and since 1998 the trend shows less warming or even cooling. Indeed, the period from December 2007 through November 2008 was the coldest 12-month span of the decade. Even if the planet isn’t cooling, there’s no evidence that warming is accelerating or that temperatures are increasing at an alarming rate.

THE RESPONSE: It’s true: By most measures, average temperatures this decade seem to have plateaued.
But this isn’t evidence of a cooling planet. Partly, it’s a result of picking an exceptionally hot year—1998—as a starting point. That year experienced an unusually strong El Niño, a natural and periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean that can have powerful effects on global climate.

The long-term trend since the mid-1970s shows warming per decade of about 0.18 degree Celsius (about 0.32 degree Fahrenheit). That temperatures this decade have hardly increased demonstrates how natural year-to-year variations in climate can either add to or subtract from the long-term warming trend caused by the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The ’00s still have been exceptionally warm: The 12 years from 1997 through 2008 were among the 15 warmest on record, and the decade itself was hotter than any previous 10-year period. While 2008 was the coolest year since 2000—a result of the cooling counterpart of El Niño—it was still the 11th-warmest year on record. And 2009 is on track to be among the five warmest.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Records of surface temperatures are unreliable and exaggerate the amount of warming.
The reason some scientists think the planet is warming drastically is that they’re relying on temperature readings from ground weather stations that in many cases have been artificially boosted by an “urban heat island” effect. Most temperature-gathering weather stations are located in cities or towns. Yet cities generally trap more heat—in asphalt, concrete and other structures—and the effect can be significantly greater than any warming effects of greenhouse gases.

THE RESPONSE: It’s true there’s an urban heat-island effect. But it hasn’t skewed the overall trends that indicate global warming.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies compares temperature readings from urban weather stations with those from nearby rural stations, and adjusts the urban data so that temperature trends match those of the rural stations. And any trends in the data are based on the rural readings alone. Other scientists have found that apparent differences between urban and rural temperature readings have probably been overstated.

There’s also plenty of evidence independent of the urban temperature readings to suggest that the planet is heating up: Oceans are warming, glaciers and permafrost are disappearing, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, and plants and animals in the Northern Hemisphere are migrating northward out of their historic ranges.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Satellite temperature readings are more reliable than those taken from surface weather stations, and satellites show little warming over the past 30 years.

Satellite readings of temperatures of the lower atmosphere compiled by the University of Alabama-Huntsville show a smaller warming trend over the past 30 years than the surface record. This minor temperature increase is well within natural variations. it may even point to a break, around 2002-03, in the 20th century warming trend.

THE RESPONSE: The earliest studies of temperature trends using satellite data did show significant differences with the surface-temperature trend, but much of that stemmed from problems with how the satellite data were put together.

As errors have been corrected, the satellite and weather-balloon measures of the lower atmosphere show warming trends similar to the surface measures.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There’s nothing especially unusual about today’s temperatures.
The Earth’s climate is constantly changing, and climate shifts have been far more dramatic in the past. Temperatures rose during the Medieval Warm Period, which extended from about 800 to 1300 A.D., and the period was as warm or warmer than the 20th century. That’s long before industrialization caused an increase in CO2 levels, undermining the link between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

It’s likely that the warming trend we’re experiencing today is merely the expected return to warmer temperatures after the Little Ice Age, a period of extremely cold winters from the 16th to the early 19th century.

THE RESPONSE: Reliable temperature records go back only about 150 years.
To get a picture of the pre-modern world’s climate, it’s necessary to correlate data from a variety of proxy sources around the globe, such as ice cores, coral growth, tree rings and the like. These temperature reconstructions show a similar pattern: a warmer period during the Middle Ages, a cooler period from about 1600 into the 1800s—and much higher temperatures in the late 20th century.

While the reconstructions suggest that temperatures in the Middle Ages were as high as those in the early 20th century, they were probably lower than the sharp temperature increase over the past 30 years. The warmest temperatures before the 20th century probably occurred between 950 and 1100 and were probably more than 0.1 degree Celsius below the 1961-1990 average (which is used as a benchmark for most current temperature measures).

Still, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions, and the uncertainty increases as scientists look further back in time. While there’s evidence for warm conditions during the Medieval period, exactly when it was warmer and for how long may have varied from place to place around the world.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Natural factors are enough to account for the moderate warming we’ve seen since 1900.
Changes in solar output in the past have contributed to wide temperature swings across the globe. Other natural phenomena, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and its cooling counterpart, La Niña, can cause large but temporary climate shifts.

These normal fluctuations are enough to cause the warming of the planet, while the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions remain relatively small.

THE RESPONSE: There’s no question that solar energy and periodic, natural changes affect the world’s climate. But these natural factors aren’t enough to account for the sharp increase in temperatures since the late 1970s.

Studies of solar output over more than 1,000 years show a strong relationship with temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere; temperatures rise when solar output increases, and they decline when solar radiance, as measured by sunspot and other activity, decreases.

But the studies have also found that solar energy doesn’t account for the steep temperature rise since the mid-1970s, a period during which solar output has remained relatively unchanged. The sun’s contribution to warming since then has been negligible.

Natural climate changes, like El Niño, also have a definite impact on weather patterns for as much as a decade; El Niño, for instance, accounted for the high temperatures in 1998. But such climate changes occur in recurring cycles and don’t show longer-term trends.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There’s no evidence that rising sea levels are linked to increased carbon-dioxide levels.
Sea levels are certainly rising, and they have been since the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago. But the observed increases in the 20th century are relatively small, and recent studies indicate that sea levels may have risen more quickly in the first half of the century than in the second. There has been no sign of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.

The increases we have seen may reflect only periodic, decade-level fluctuations, not a continuing, long-term increase. This suggests the sea-level rises this century will be about the same as last century and could easily be accommodated.

THE RESPONSE: After rising following the last Ice Age, sea levels stabilized about 2,000 years ago and held fairly steady until about 1800, but they have been rising since then—about 1.7 millimeters a year for the 20th century. Contrary to what the skeptics say, however, satellite readings indicate sea levels rose more steeply—about 3.4 millimeters a year, or a little more than one-eighth of an inch—from 1993 to 2008.

Although such a sharp short-term climb is very likely a sign of a long-term acceleration in sea-level increases, it is recent enough that it still could indicate decade-level variability; assessing the long-term trend will require more years of data.

For the rest of the 21st century, ocean levels are projected to rise at a greater rate as the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica accelerates. Accurate projections of the rise are difficult, however, because the mechanics of the melting ice sheets are poorly understood.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-afiliated organization, estimated in 2007 that sea levels will rise between 18 centimeters and 59 centimeters by 2095, with another rise of 10 to 20 centimeters possible if the melting of those ice sheets speeds up. But a recent report predicts that the rise in sea levels this century is likely to be twice as great as the IPCC report projects.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Polar ice isn’t disappearing.

Warmer temperatures are partly responsible for recent declines in sea ice in the Arctic , but shifting winds are the main factor. What’s more, declines in the northern ice cap have been counterbalanced by increases in the Antarctic ice pack, so there’s little net loss of polar ice. These opposite trends argue against the existence of man-made global warming.

THE RESPONSE: The two ends of the Earth do seem to behave differently, but that reflects the complexity of the world’s climate system and isn’t evidence against global warming.

The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, which holds in more heat. Also, as the ice cap melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat and accelerates the rate of warming. The Antarctic, by contrast, is a continent surrounded by ocean, and climate models predict that it will respond differently to global warming.

In the north, satellite measurements show that Arctic sea ice has decreased steadily since the late 1970s; in September, when the ice cap is at its smallest, sea ice has declined about 10% a decade, or about 28,000 square miles through 2007. Though the ice has recovered somewhat, the September 2009 minimum was still 24% below the average from 1979 to 2000. What’s more, the sea ice is thinner and probably reached a record low volume in 2008.

In the Antarctic, meanwhile, wintertime ice has extended its range by about 1%, or almost 39,000 square miles, a decade. (Most Antarctic sea ice typically disappears completely in the summer.) The mechanism for this isn’t completely understood; scientists theorize that ozone depletion in the region contributes to stronger and colder winds that promote production of sea ice.

It’s possible, too, that increased snowfall—a result of a warmer southern ocean and air temperatures—also adds to the amount of sea ice.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There is no consensus that human-caused warming is creating a disastrous rise in global temperatures. The causes of 20th-century warming are in sharp dispute among scientists, as is the amount of warming expected in the future.

THE RESPONSE: Science is rarely final, and it always has its skeptics. Hypotheses are tested and retested as more data are collected and examined, and disagreements among researchers play a vital role in moving scientific understanding forward.

But the vast majority of scientists who study the climate agree on the essential points: that the Earth is getting warmer and that most of the warming in recent decades has been caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from human activities. As CO2 concentrations increase, the rate of warming will accelerate.

This view, summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is endorsed by the world’s leading scientific organizations, including the national academies of science in a score of countries and, in the U.S. , the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

In a recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82% agreed that human activity is a “significant contributing factor” in changing global temperatures. Specialists were in greater agreement: 75 of the 77 climate scientists who actively publish in the field—about 97%—agreed with the statement.

Sarah Palin has a point of view on the Copenhagen meetings…it is rogue and it appeared on her Facebook Page about a week ago. She has yet to go away!!!!Her ambition to be this country’s president says good and bad things about our country…”you betcha”.

Matt

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009

Paul Krugman, as usual is right. Read this op-ed,  which I see as right also.

Matt

Today’s op-ed column by Paul Krugman, “An Affordable Truth” supports a view that a cap and trade bill designed to dramatically cut our greenhouse gas emissions is  “affordable, essential”, and can help our economy recover faster.

The article describes how financial incentives under climate legislation will work to meet our environmental goals. Under a cap and trade program, businesses will be given a free market signal that tells them they will “be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon.” A market based approach to addressing climate change which Mr. Krugman argues should be welcomed by “conservatives that claim that the magic of the markets can deal with any problem”.

Mr. Krugman also reviews the cost projections of the House-passed cap and trade bill and finds that “emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point — from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent”.  Hardly the doom and gloom projections you hear from conservatives and an amount that likely overstates the actual costs given our history with other cap and trade programs.

Further, “cap and trade” is expected to create the jobs and investment opportunities needed to help our economy recover sooner.  Indeed, Mr. Krugman argues that now is an especially good time to start a project like this as “the prospect of climate-change legislation could spur more investment spending” which “is exactly what the economy needs”.

To support this, Mr. Krugman describes how the opportunity under cap and trade to retrofit buildings, when construction costs are low, can help put people back to work and make existing buildings more valuable as demand for more energy efficient buildings increases over time.

These incentive based investments are not just limited to the building sector. Mr. Krugman could have included how cleaner cars, more efficient motors, carbon trapping power plants, and cutting edge wind and solar power technologies, all incentivized under the climate bill, can help re-power the country as well. Efforts that not only make good business sense as they improve the energy productivity of our manufacturing base, but also make good energy security sense as they help drive down our dependence on foreign oil.

Lastly, Mr. Krugman concludes that he is feeling optimistic about the climate talks beginning in Copenhagen this week. That President Obama’s attendance is sending a strong signal that he expects “real progress” on this issue and that we all need to be part of the solution. A solution that “would save the planet at a price we can easily afford.”