Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

November 30, 2009

Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

The Conspiracy Thickens

Scientists’ E-Mails Fuel for Anti-Climate Change Proponents
Didn’t their Daddy tell them to never say it in ink?
E-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain may evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas. In one e-mail from 1999, the center’s director, Phil Jones, alludes to an article in the journal Nature and writes, “I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” “It is clear that some of the ‘world’s leading climate scientists,’ as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,” said Martin Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. “Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.” See:
http://www.blogger.com/goog_1259604692514
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story


Climate Change Data Dumped
Maybe they’ll find the data on the grassy knoll.
The same scientists in the above story have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. 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 — were dumped to save space. 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. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Waning Belief in Global Warming

Most Support GHG Action, Despite Weakening Belief in Warming – Poll
Huh? Less belief translates into a call for more action? What? Who’s on first? I don’t know, who’s on second…No he’s on first.”
A smaller percentage of Americans believe in global warming, even though a majority continues to support legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according a Washington Post-ABC News poll. The poll found 72 percent of the public agrees with the idea that “the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly,” while 26 percent believe such a change in temperature is not happening. That level of belief in global warming is down 8 percent from last year, when the same question was asked, and represents the lowest level of support since at least 1997. But of those individuals who believe global warming is happening, 82 percent believe that it is a serious problem and 53 percent support a cap-and-trade system to deal with the problem. The level of support for cap and trade is essentially unchanged from when poll asked the same question earlier this fall, but it does represent a 6-percentage-point drop from August 2007. Additionally, 55 percent of those polled expressed support for U.S. action on global warming even if other nations don’t “do equally effective things” to address the problem. Twenty-one percent said the United States should act if other countries do, as well, and 22 percent said it should take no action at all. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112402989.html

Cows

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District v. Anti-Cow Activists
The choice is really simple, we need to invent gas free cows, or all become lactose intolerant.
Environmentalists are likely to challenge San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District dairy emissions rules that exempt some facilities from having to purchase emissions offsets if U.S. EPA approves the rules, even after reaching a consent decree with the agency last month to act on the high-profile issue. The District issued the first-time dairy rules in response to a 2004 state law that removed a longstanding exemption from air quality rules for agriculture. But environmentalists now charge that the latest version of the District’s rules still contain an illegal exemption for some dairies by not subjecting them to requirements to offset emissions of VOCs, and in some cases does not require them to install emission-control technology. The agency’s forthcoming decision on the District’s rules comes as EPA continues testing of agricultural air emissions, including dairies, hog farms and poultry and cattle operations, in an effort to determine what operating levels are and whether they need to be reduced and regulated. The national air emissions monitoring study is expected to be completed in May 2010, while VOC estimation methods for concentrated animal feed operations should be completed by November 2011, according to EPA.
See: http://www.valleyair.org/

Cap and Trade California Style

CARB Releases Detailed Outline of Its Cap and Trade Regulations – Possible Roadmap for the Feds
First it was surfboards, now cap and trade. California is just groovy.
California unveiled preliminary rules for what could become in 2012 the nation’s first multi-sector greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program. The program goes well beyond the scope of the Northeastern states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program, which targets only power plants. California’s program would apply to the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gases, beginning with electricity generators and importers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants, and other industrial facilities and initially covers 600 facilities that each emits more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. Eventually, the program will be expanded to include emissions from producing and delivering transportation fuels and from commercial and residential use of natural gas. The preliminary rules would:


• Establish declining emissions caps set to achieve the 2020 target;
• Create three-year compliance periods, the first beginning Jan. 1, 2012;
• Require a minimum number of emissions allowances to be auctioned at the start of the program;
• Allow limited use of verifiable, high-quality offsets outside of capped sectors; and
• Establish clear rules for emissions trading, monitoring, and enforcement.


The trading program would apply to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. Under the proposal, permits to emit, or allowances, would be issued annually and at least some would be auctioned to fund clean energy and other projects. CARB has yet to decide what portion of the permits would be auctioned. At the end of a compliance period, the facilities must surrender allowances to meet their caps, bank them for future use, sell excess allowances, or ask CARB to retire the allowances. Emitters could use offset credits for a certain percentage of their emissions reduction requirements—as long as they meet CARB’s criteria—in lieu of buying allowances or reducing their emissions.


Industry officials expressed concern over the program. “California’s global warming program must not stifle the growth of California's economy,” California Manufacturer’s & Technology Association’s Dorothy Rothrock said in a written statement. “Manufacturers are gravely concerned that the cap and trade program will impose significant new costs on their operation in the state.” Auctioning allowances could “act like a massive new tax on production,” Rothrock said.
See: http://arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Dollars and Nonsense

College Cuts Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 80%
Buying your way to claiming carbon reduction!
St. Mary’s College of Maryland has reduced its carbon emissions by 80% this year largely driven by student initiatives. The student body purchased Renewable Energy Credits at a cost of about $50,000 to offset 100 percent of the carbon emissions produced by the college’s electricity consumption (12,000 tons of CO2 saved). The Northeast Energy Services Company, Inc. program of upgrading college facilities saved 2430 tons. The LEED-certified Goodpaster Hall reduced CO2 emissions by 610 tons. The James P. Muldoon River Center has a student-sponsored geothermal HVAC system that cuts CO2 emissions by 270 tons. The new Glendening Building has “green” features that reduce CO2 emissions by 125 tons. These and other innovations have allowed the college, which would have produced 19,500 tons of CO2 over the last year, to offset over 15,000 tons of CO2 emissions. As a result the college produced just of 4000 tons of CO2.
See: http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/15523


Selling Offsets by Mobile Phone in Ethiopia
Wouldn’t it be better to text them instructions on growing food in their environment?
The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working with Ethiopia to allow small Ethiopian farmers to measure the diameters of trees on their land twice a year and put the information into a text message, which, along with each farmer’s unique identification code, is then sent to the regional office. Software computes the amount of carbon stored on each farm as well as the change from the previous measurement; any increase in stored carbon dioxide is converted into cash using the going rate of CO2 on international markets, and farmers are paid. Concern has been expressed about keeping farmers honest and using verifiable data when they report as well as the need to adjust the computer modeling to calculate the amount of CO2 absorbed by stands of trees based on the idiosyncrasies of Ethiopian ecology. See: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/veli-pohjonen/


Climate Change Pushes Poor Women to Prostitution, Dangerous Work
A terrible thought brought to you by a large leap of logic.
The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said. Suneeta Mukherjee of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines is the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country. “Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection, “Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City. Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment Secretary, Dr. Angel Alcala. But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family. Alcala said some women often pick out shellfish by the coastlines, which exposed to storm surges. Women who can no longer endure this work often go out to find other jobs, while some are tempted to go into prostitution, Alcala added.
See: http://www.gmanews.tv/print/177346

Pushing SEC for Disclosure Requirements

Investors Push for Disclosure of Risk; Climate Change may see SEC Action Soon
How do you report on things you don’t even know how to quantify? Doesn’t seem to matter, report it anyway.
A group of investors filed a supplement Nov. 23 to a petition asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose GHG emissions and associated risks, citing pending legislation and proposed regulations. Filed by environmental groups and large investors—including the Environmental Defense Fund, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, and several states’ chief financial officers—the supplement adds to a petition filed in 2007. The petition asked that the SEC require that all companies include reports of climate-related risks when reporting other financial risks. They argue that such risks can include physical assets that could be endangered by rising sea level or other effects of climate change. It also can include the costs of complying with pending legislation that would require covered entities to purchase an allowance for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted. It could even include risk to reputation if a company is likely to lose income as consumers shift to products that are perceived as being environmentally friendly. Recent changes in the makeup of the Commission itself are likely to bring this issue to the forefront. See: http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=1151

Transportation

FAA Study Warns Alternative Fuels may Worsen Aviation’s GHG Profile
Let’s just blame Orville and Wilbur and be done with it.
Industry officials say alternative jet fuels could play a central role in reducing aviation’s carbon footprint, but a new study commissioned by the FAA finds many of those fuels are actually worse for the climate than conventional petroleum, and that those which do produce fewer lifecycle GHG emissions “are costly and could potentially be counterproductive.” Further contradicting the industry’s stance, the report also says imposing a price on carbon—not federal subsidies and mandates—is the best way to further the development of alternatives to oil. But beyond improving the efficiency of their engines and aircraft, there are few ways the aviation industry can reduce its GHG emissions short of cutting back on flights, which, combined with the costly fluctuations in the price of oil—and the industry’s desire to be exempted from GHG regulation—helps explain its interest in developing alternatives to conventional jet fuel. See: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR554/

No-Not Again

Royal Dutch Shell Calls for Derivatives on Carbon Trading
AIG, are you listening???? They’re calling your name!!!!
Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil producer, is calling for the removal of any restrictions on carbon credit trading and asking for derivative contracts to be allowed under cap-and-trade programs, but Legislators in the US plan to impose restrictions on trading of carbon credits under a proposed cap-and-trade program, on concern that speculators will drive up carbon prices and costs for consumers. “You have to allow a secondary market to develop,” David Hone, Shell’s climate change adviser, told reporters at an energy conference in Singapore today. “You don’t want to have a carbon market that’s restricted from doing what other commodity markets are doing.” See: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cfd/shell-calls-for-derivatives-on-carbon-trading-20091117-ij67.html


U.S. Industry Calls for Carbon Trading Derivatives
AIG, are you listening???? They’re calling your name!!!! Again.
A coalition of electric power and natural gas industry groups that is arguing for preserving access to over-the-counter (OTC) energy derivatives markets has set its sights on the Senate, sent a letter to the agriculture and banking committees outlining recommendations for reforming the OTC derivatives market. The groups sending the letter include the American Gas Association, the Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association represents a much larger coalition. The coalition argues for striking a balance between improving transparency in the OTC derivatives markets and ensuring “the ability of companies to access critical OTC energy derivatives products and markets” because the groups’ members “rely on these products and markets to manage price risk and help keep rates stable and affordable for retail consumers.” See: http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/over-the-counter-derivatives-legislation

Species Protection

Climate Change Threats
Let’s hear it for the salt marsh harvest mouse!


EPA is seeking public comment on a draft report on determining the climate change impacts on vulnerable species. The report, “A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change,” comes as some activists have argued that the Endangered Species Act should be used as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to a notice published in the Federal Register Nov. 25, the report compares the relative vulnerability to climate change of five threatened and endangered species as well as the bald eagle, which is not longer classified as endangered or threatened. The species’ vulnerability is determined based on four “modules,” which focus on a number of issues including “the likely vulnerability of a species to future climate change, including the species’ potential physiological, behavioral, demographic, and ecological response to climate change.” The species are then categorized into a number of groupings, including “critically vulnerable,” “highly vulnerable,” “less vulnerable,” and “least vulnerable.” The report will be released for a 30-day public comment period beginning Nov. 25. The species examined in the report are the golden-cheeked warbler, the salt marsh harvest mouse, the Mount Graham red squirrel, the Lahontan cutthroat trout, the desert tortoise and the bald eagle. See:
http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-11-25-E9-28294