When economic interests have precedence over common sense: Since April 2006 our lawyer, Dr. Jose Pablo Duran Gomez, sued the Colombian government, demanding for more research be carried out on the production and combustion of biofuels to better understand, anticipate and mitigate as far as possible, the mechanical, environmental, social, economic and public health effects that these biofuels have and will have. The phenomena associated with biofuels are not well understood and even worse, ignored or underestimated, which have lead to recent and strong pronouncements from organizations such as FAO, World Bank, UN, EU and a significant number of environmental and human rights organizations throughout the world.

Despite a large number of international studies demonstrating risks and dangers associated to the use of biofuels, added to those that appear every day worldwide, Judge Matilde Lemos Sanmartin, ex-fifth Administrative Judge of Bogota, said that “the evidence presented is insufficient,” and thus refused the request of more and deep studies, ignoring the precautionary principle and the legal mechanisms followed to obtain these studies, mandatory when the discussion is so important for the citizenry and the country, what can be applied to many other Latin American countries.

It sounds like she does not read newspapers or hear the news. Curiously, our demand was the last judgement signed by Lemos Sanmartin before being promoted to Judge of the Administrative Tribunal in the Arauca Department.

In Colombia there were only 2 studies on 8 automobiles, which anyway show that ethanol harms some components, especially in older carburetor cars, more than a half of the colombian vehicle fleet.

It is ironic that while in countries like Germany, large automobile manufacturers, have decided to reduce the proportion of ethanol blending from 10% to 7% because of the damage it can cause to their vehicles and have postponed until 2009 the usage of ethanol, in Colombia the government is trying to accelerate the process to force an increase in the mixture, raising the minimum to 20% by 2012 and starting with 12% in the period 2009-2010. There are no vehicles in Colombia that can withstand these mixtures, and even if the new cars are made with the required specifications, nothing is said about the possible mechanical damage to nearly 5 million vehicles currently circulating in the country, which demonstrates improvisation and irresponsibility about the topic.

By the other hand, the Health Secretary of Bogotá reported for 2007 an increase of more than 1700 cases of acute respiratory illness in children under the age of 5 years old, only in this city, with respect to 2006. These cared-for cases are linked, probably, to the increase in the concentration of tropospheric ozone caused by the higher volatility of gasoline when it is mixed with ethanol, which leads to a greater amount of volatile organic compounds, VOCs, in the atmosphere, which due to photochemical reactions, produce this and other pollutants hazardous to health, such as ozone, nitrogen oxides and acetaldehyde.

This increase, about 6% compared to 2006, is surely much higher taking into account that many of those affected children have no access to health care system and therefore these cases of morbidity and mortality are not recorded. Moreover, is also necessary to include other risk groups such as elders and those already suffering lung disease, throughout the country; this increase should be carefully evaluated, global warming and climate change can not be the unique and magical explanations for these phenomena, the colombian government must do everything that is feasible and humanly possible to address this situation.

The increase in food prices, of which Colombia is no an exception although the government affirms otherwise, is only the visible tip of the iceberg, perhaps the most painful of the problems that if not widely studied, monitored and controlled, can lead in the nearby to very serious consequences as has happened in Malaysia, the third CO2 donor in the world due, in large percentage, to african palm monoculture.

Nothing is mentioned by the colombian media about the imposition of an environmental quality stamp by the European Union to palm oil exportations from Colombia due to the negative environmental effects caused by the clearing and burning carried out to sow sugar cane and african palm, low-paid work in harsh conditions, the forced displacement and crimes committed in relation to the appropriating of farmlands, with the only exception of a paid notice in which the stamp is presented like a generous gift for all of us from palm oil sowers.

Unfortunately, there are many more unwanted consequences; in the medium and long term we can expect more forced displacement and killing of peasants, changes in the use of farmlands, desertification, pollution of soils and water, economic and technological dependency, impoverishment of large population groups, concentration of farmlands in the hands of large economic groups and corporations, severe ecological damage due to intensive use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, to name just a few unwanted results of this “boom.”

Ethanol contains a third less energy than gasoline, so vehicles travel less kilometers per gallon, however around 800 gallons of water are needed to produce one of ethanol. The search for new energy sources is necessary but we can not simply change some pollutants for others, affording the risk of creating more serious problems than those to be resolved; all efforts to fully understand the whole consequences that the production and usage of this biofuels are necessary and urgent.

We will not relent in our efforts to demand that ethanol and oil palm production be carried out with human and social sense, and not only commercial objectives like what are happening right now in Colombia. Biofuels should be seen as a temporary and partial solution, not as a total remedy. We do not consider acceptable nor secure the omission of serious and conclusive studies in order to protect economic interests that hardly benefit persons other than the owners of this profitable business; we will appeal to all possible instances in Colombia and abroad to force that precautionary principle be applied in order to protect ourselves and future generations of irreparable damage which could result prohibitively expensive in terms of environment and public health.

C. Fernando Marquez M.
Executive Director
Colombian Society of Motorists S.C.A.
http://www.sca.com.co

Back in June, I wrote a blog entitled “The Scare-du-Jour” discussing the latest big food scare in the U.S., i.e., an FDA (Food and Drug Administration) dire warning that eating tomatoes probably is the cause of Salmonella poisoning in what has now been guessed to be over 1,200 people all over the country over a period of (so far) a couple of months. That’s somewhere around 20 people a day in a country of 300 million. So naturally grocery stores and restaurants all over the country stopped selling and serving tomatoes. Tomato growers in California have lost upwards of $200 million since the first warnings.

But WAIT!! Our FDA scientists and regulators have decided that California tomatoes were never a danger after all, but tomatoes from Texas or New Jersey.

NO, WAIT! it’s not tomatoes at all, but maybe perhaps chili pepers!! Oops, now our brilliant FDA guys say maybe perhaps it’s only chilis grown in Mexico, so don’t eat salsa. How much money have owners of Mexican restaurants lost as a result? One FDA investigator was quoted as saying, “You hate to hurt an industry and cause 100 million in damage. On the other hand, I don’t think any of us could sleep if we didn’t say something and then a kid died the next day” (I hope he loses sleep from eating salsa).  I know that most parents feed their babies hot salsa instead of baby formula, so that statement makes SO much sense, doesn’t it?

Healthy people who eat solid food don’t die from Salmonella, they get sick for a night. And, after having diarrhea all night, all those “victims” were sure to collect a nice sample to take to the doctor the next day for a lab test to be sure it was Salmonella and not one of four or five other species of food borne bacteria that could cause the same symptoms. And of course, people who do visit a doctor the next day because they are old and feeble, in bad general health, must recall everything they’ve eaten in the last 48 hours. “Well doc, I had bad smelling chicken sitting on the kitchen counter, so I doused it in salsa to cover the smell before I ate it”. Or, ”I went to an outdoor clam/oyster feed the other day and ate lots of the chips and salsa dip appetizer”. I guess the best words to describe this latest scare (last year it was strawberrys) is “farce”, or perhaps, “just plain stupid”.

It Isn’t Oil!

Geothermal energy: Clean, stable, always available

In 1881, King David Kalakaua had the bright idea of using Hawaii’s fiery volcanoes to produce electricity and light the streets. It took technology the next century to catch up with the visionary king.

On the Big Island of Hawaii, nearly 20 percent of the electricity we consume is produced naturally by tapping the Earth’s heat. It is firm, strong power that the island truly depends upon, enough to continually power 20,000 residences.

When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, heat from the Earth’s interior is always available.

Puna’s geothermal power station delivers 30 megawatts of power, with potential to deliver much more. (Photo: Puna Geothermal Venture)

Puna Geothermal Venture, the only commercial geothermal facility in the state, has been generating sustainable electricity for the Big Island for 15 years.

Under a Power Purchase Agreement with Hawaii Electric Light Company, PGV sends all the electricity it produces—30 megawatts—to the utility. It could provide much more.

The slopes of Kilauea Volcano are the state’s best resource.  The only other island with significant geothermal resources is Maui, but its potential is considerably less.

Geothermal electricity:

Puna Geothermal Venture invested heavily in new equipment and technologies to get where it is today. State-of-the-art equipment is used to drill wells deep into volcanic reservoirs—a mile or more—and bring up hot fluid and steam. The steam drives turbines that generate electricity.

Geothermal is also ‘green’: No oil or other fossil fuel is used in the operation.

The plant has near “zero” emissions because the brine and gases that are left over are injected back into the Earth, well below the water table, through another set of wells called re-injection wells.

This is called a binary or closed-loop circulation system, meaning that no excess gases or fluids reach the open air. It is one of the most advanced methods for producing geothermal energy. All PGV wells are this type.

Other uses are possible besides generating electricity. Geothermal could contribute to the manufacture of other technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells. It could also provide direct heat applications such as drying fruit and lumber, greenhouse propagation and aquaculture projects—even heating buildings.

And there are economic benefits. Puna Geothermal Venture has 30 full-time employees and various other contractors. Many live in Puna District.

PGV seeks to be a good neighbor, keeping the community informed of its activities via newsletter, a 24-hour response line and online information.

Geothermal energy is the backbone of renewable energy resources in Hawaii. As the electricity demands grow, Puna Geothermal Venture stands ready to expand the project to meet the needs of the community.

Tours of the facility, for groups or individuals, are available but must be booked in advance. Call (808) 965-6233.

For the last few weeks it’s tomatos, those wonderful fruits. Over 300 cases of salmonella poisoning from eating tomatoes (maybe) were reported all over the U.S., a country of 300 million people.

Were you afraid to eat a tomato? You do the math of your odds of getting sick from eating one (hint: odds similiar to you winning the lottery). So naturally, we removed all tomatoes from market shelves all over the country and restaurants stopped serving tomatoes on burgers and in your salad.

No matter that nobody died, and probably AT LEAST 50,000 cases of food poisoning occur every DAY from an assortment of bacteria in your food. Maybe you ate a bad oyster or clam, the food server in the restaurant didn’t wash his hands, you ate a chicken sandwich that sat out at room temperature for a few hours, an ecoli burger, etc. So you spend the whole night not sleeping, but barfing and having diarrhea and the next day you feel awful. You don’t report to some doctor because if you have any brains you know what happened and you know you will be fine the day after tomorrow.

To top it off, on June 17 the FDA said all those junked tomatoes would have been safe to eat after all!! The only food scare more stupid than this latest one is the mad cow scare in the U.S. a few years ago. ONE, count em, one cow was discovered to have mad cow disease in  Washington state. Nobody would eat beef and it was a DAIRY cow, not even slated to enter the food supply.

Because of that one sick cow, Japan and South Korea stopped importing all U.S. beef. Of course, the whole mad cow thing started in Europe in the 1980’s. It was hypothesized, and it is still just a hypothesis, that eating mad cow meat could cause  Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in human meat eaters, maybe perhaps.

For more than a decade, 60 million meat eaters in Great Britain had been eating mad cow meat without knowing it. The result? Around 300 people got that disease, maybe from the meat but maybe not, and the whole British beef industry was destroyed (Germany too). I’ll let you do the math on that as well as the tomatoes! I invite comments, especially from readers who might have more good examples of how easily the public can be fooled and terrified by the scare du hour, du week, du month, du year.

In the U.S., Memorial day is BBQ day, especially this year when gasoline prices make lots of folks prefer to stay home and have a cookout with friends instead of travelling somewhere. Get out that lighter fluid, squirt in on your mesquite charcoal briquettes, and fire up. Then grill those hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, chicken, or whatever and enjoy. BUT WAIT! Grilling or frying any meats creates chemicals that when ingested in really, really high doses causes cancer in laboratory rats. What to do? I lived in Texas for a few years, a state in which proper BBQ (which includes slow smoking of meats in addition to grilling (both producing carcinogens) is a religion. Now I live in California, where many people actually worry about carcinogens in grilled meats.

This post was inspired by an article in my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, called “cue tips” http://www.sacbee.com/165/story/960506.html. The article gives advice about how to minimize exposure to these putative nasty chemicals when you grill. Unfortunately, if you follow their advice, the meat you cook will taste like cardboard! First they would have you use lean meats,  trim off all fat, and flip the meat often. They would even have you microwave your steaks awhile before grilling. This is all supposed to reduce the amount of carcinogens formed. A dead Texan would be turning over in his grave reading the Bee article! You might as well cook the steak or burger in boiling water. They would even have you clean your grill with dish detergent!!!

The reason I must post this BBQ blasphemy is because these cautions are just another example of our national obsessive fear-mongering about anything that might be enjoyable.  For more information, readers should read my essay from a few years back on Ecoworld entitled “Chemophobia” http://ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=366. Toward the end of the article I describe research I did on benzo-a-pyrene, a rat carcinogen formed during the frying of meats. Although the fear mongers will say otherwise, NOBODY will EVER get cancer simply from eating fried or grilled meats. I know of no epidemiology study that has compared cancer rates in people who eat lots of BBQ meats vs. those who perhaps eat their meat prepared otherwise (perhaps raw?). If anyone can show me one that purports to show that BBQers have an increased risk of some cancer, please send it to me for critique.  For more about how “scientific” studies are abused, read “Studies Show” http://ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=458.

by Marc Morano -

Newsweek Magazine’s cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, “The Truth About Denial” contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards. (LINK)

The one-sided editorial, masquerading as a “news article,” was written by Sharon Begley with Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift and Matthew Philips and purports to examine the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

Environmentalists don’t have to be global warming alarmists.

The only problem is - Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )

This week’s “news article” in Newsweek follows the Magazine’s October 23, 2006 article which admitted the error of their ways in the 1970’s when they predicted dire global cooling. (See: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70’s Predictions of Coming Ice Age – LINK)

Use of Word ‘Denier’

First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the word “denier” when describing a scientist who views with skepticism the unproven computer models predicting future climate doom. The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK)

“Let’s be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (LINK)

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California “proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming,” according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK)

Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

Capitalists can love nature & environmentalists can love profit. (Photo: Mark Jackson)

Global Warming ‘A Big Cash Grab’

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics. “[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears. “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK)

“Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added. ‘An Entrenched Interest’ Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,” also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy. “Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams,” Singer explained on June 30, 2007. (LINK)

“In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage,” Singer added. For a detailed breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)

The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (LINK)

Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for ‘action’ to combat their computer model predictions of a ‘climate emergency?’” (See EPW Blog for full article – LINK)

As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech: “The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.” (LINK)

Senator Inhofe further explained: “I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ — especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.” (LINK)

Now contrast all of the above with how much money the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive. The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision) The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical of man-made global warming – LINK)

To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider: One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” (LINK) or (LINK)

As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry’s wife Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004. (LINK)

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has noted how proponents of man-made climate fears enjoy huge funding advantages. “Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding,” Lindzen wrote in a April 12, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (LINK)

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis,” Lindzen added. (For more on the vilification of climate skeptics see LINK)

Loving wilderness and wildlife is universal.

Science Vindicating Skeptics

Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to make it appear as though the science is getting stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problems with that assertion. Scientists are speaking up around the globe to denounce Gore, the UN and the media driven “consensus” on global warming. Just recently, an EPW report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – LINK]

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, detailed how he left the global warming funding “gravy train” and became a skeptic. “By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming,” Evans explained. “But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. (LINK)

In addition, just last week, three new scientific studies further strengthened the skeptics’ views on climate change. (LINK) Further, a recent analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks any fears of Greenland melting and a frightening sea level rise. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt - LINK]

Newsweek: A Media Dinosaur

The question remains: Is Newsweek even a news outlet worth taking the time to respond to in posts like this? Does Newsweek, a quirky alternative news outlet, even have an impact on public policy anymore? Journalism students across the world can read this week’s cover story to learn how reporting should not be done. Hopefully, that will be Newsweek’s legacy — serving as a shining example of the failure of modern journalism to adhere to balance, objectivity and fairness. Anyone who fails to see this inconvenient truth is truly (to borrow Newsweek’s vernacular) a “denier.” Background of recent climate science developments: Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)

The New York Times is now debunking aspects of climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006 article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin stated: “few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions.) There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.” The New York Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events are outside of natural climate variability. So all the climate doomsayers have to back up their claims of climate fears are unproven computer models of the future. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today. It’s simply not possible.

Climate Computer Models Not So Reliable

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” (LINK)

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO and director of research for the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.” (LINK)

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK)

The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct linear way.” Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

New data is revealing what may perhaps be the ultimate inconvenient truth for climate doomsayers: Global warming stopped in 1998. Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007: (LINK)

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.” Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in man-made global warming to skeptics (LINK) and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics. (See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK)

It is ironic that Newsweek quoted former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth to promote climate fears and vilify skeptics. After all, it was Wirth who reportedly said in 1990: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (LINK) It seems that the science underlying the claims of climate fears may not be as important to the global warming activists as their proposed tax and regulatory “solutions.”

# #

Related Links:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus”

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming”

# # #

This was originally published in August 5th, 2007 on the Inhofe Environmental and Public Works Blog, entitled “Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism” and is republished with permission.

Earlier this month at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2008, heads of state, ministers, policymakers, corporate leaders, NGO’s and financiers met for three days to address the issue of climate change. During the event, the REEEP South Asia Regional Secretariat organised a workshop to discuss financial risk management in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Risk is a major concern for financiers and investors.

The Indian renewable energy sector has shown impressive growth in the last few years and investment in the sector have increased significantly. However, investment still lags behind expectations and market potential is not being fully realised. According to the Government of India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy the country’s short term goal is to add approximately 24GW of new capacity from renewables by 2012. Currently installed capacity is about 11 GW. The planned increase in capacity requires more than Euro 3 million in investment.

Mr Creon Butler, UK Deputy High Commissioner, spoke about the UK government’s intent to establish an £800 million environmental transformation fund, which will be made available to developing countries for transition to a low carbon growth path.

Mr. Chadrashekar Iyer, Associate Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers said, “The renewable energy sector in India has been increasing at 20% annually and the annual turnover of the renewables industry is reaching Euro 1.7 billion. Policy and regulatory frameworks are an important factor to promote investment and policies must guide investment into projects that can improve energy production.”

Fuel supply, performance and technology, regulatory and credit risks were some of the major risks identified in the Indian context during the event. In order to address the issue of risk mitigation, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) recently provided funding to a two year project in India to analyse the risks and barriers facing the renewable energy industry. The project is expected to develop risk management instruments and policy recommendations.

The finance community has shown great interest in the project. Mr Debashish Majumdar, Chairman and Managing Director of the Indian Renewable Energy Agency (IREDA) emphasized the enormous potential of renewable energy and urged the finance community to enable the renewables industry to tap into this potential efficiently.

Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, International Director of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), underlined the partnership’s commitment to “proactive cooperation with financial institutions and development agencies, and mainstreaming technology transfer into REEEP projects.”

By Terry Wang, Interfax China, March 6, 2008

China is ready to adopt a nationwide permit-based pollutant emission trading scheme as a key part of its drive to increase energy efficiency and reduce pollution, an official with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) said at an industry conference on Thursday March 6th.
“China has attained the necessary conditions for setting up a trading exchange for pollutant discharge permits,” said Mu Huaipeng, director of the central bank’s financial market department.

The country, which aims to cut emissions of major pollutants by 10 percent during the 2006-2010 period, initiated a pilot sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading trial program in 2002. The program allows companies in the provinces of Shandong, Shanxi, Jiangsu and Henan, as well as the cities of Shanghai, Tianjin and Liuzhou, to exchange emission credits with the China Huaneng Group, the country’s largest power producer.

Jiangsu’s provincial government announced in November last year that a full buy-and-sell water pollution emissions trading system would come into effect at the beginning of this year. Some 266 enterprises that discharge pollutants into Lake Tai, which is notorious for serious pollution problems, must buy permits from other firms if they exceed their emission quotas. Initial pollution permit prices are set at RMB 10.5 ($1.48) per kilogram of chemical oxygen demand (COD), a measurement of water pollution, for chemical firms; RMB 5.2 ($0.73) for printing and dyeing mills; and RMB 1.8 ($0.25) for paper mills.

Despite the lengthy implementation of the trial programs, the country has stalled the launch of a national trading system. Industry insiders say that is due to complications that arose regarding permit allocation.

“There is a lot of disagreement over how emission permits should be allocated between different industries, and whether the industrial output values of various sectors should be taken into consideration,” said an official with Guohua Electric Power, a power subsidiary under China’s major coal producer Shenhua Group. “But, I believe such a domestic trading system will be implemented very soon,” the official, who wished to remain anonymous, said.

The pollution permit trading system is one of a series of moves initiated by the Chinese government aimed at improving
environmental protection measures.

According to rules drawn up last year by the State Environment Protection Bureau, PBOC and the China Banking Regulatory Commission, financial institutions are forbidden from extending credit to any newly-constructed project that has not gone through proper environmental assessments, and will be penalized if credit is not withheld from enterprises that have exceeded emission quotas or failed to apply for necessary emissions permits.

This article was originally published by Interfax-China, and is republished with permission.  Interfax-China’s team of in-country analysts track China’s industries and markets, providing comprehensive daily coverage of China’s energy sector.  Learn how more about these markets and the opportunities they offer your business. Learn about energy in China through our China Energy Weekly and focused energy reports carbon trading, clean & renewable energy, CTL, oil & gas, and power generation.  Free Trial – Contact Andrew Billard; andrew@interfax.cn or by phone at 86-10-8532-5021 (Beijing, China).

by Yang Jing, Interfax China, March 6, 2007

A senior official with China Shenhua Group said at an industrial forum in Beijing on Tuesday that the CTL (coal-to-liquids) process is sufficiently efficient and environmentally friendly, dismissing comments that such technology wastes too much energy and hurts the environment.

Wu Xiuzhang, the vice chief engineer at Shenhua Group, said at the CTLtec Asia 2008 conference that its CTL project, which will have an annual oil production capacity of 1.08 million tons, will be put into operation in September.

The CTL project, located in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, will be the first in China. According to Wu, most of the project’s output will be diesel fuel, but will also include naphtha and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Wu said that energy conversion efficiency of CTL processes can reach 59.3 percent, higher than the IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) process, which, he said, is deemed the power generation technology with the highest energy efficiency.

However, Dr. Gary Kendall with World Wildlife Fund International said at the same forum that the “mine-to-wheels” efficiency of CTL products is only 12 percent, while that of IGCC plant is as much as 30 percent.

“Mine to wheels” means the process’s total efficiency in converting coal into liquid fuel for vehicles.

Kendall said that CTL has no place in a responsible energy plan, since the coal-to-electron for vehicles process can deliver
almost three times as many kilometers as CTL.

Another debate arose at the conference regarding the considerable water consumption of the CTL process. Wu said that Shenhua Group’s CTL project will consume 8 tons of water for each ton of oil product output, while the total water consumption for crude oil exploitation and oil refining processes is 6 tons for each ton of oil product output. Wu said it is untrue that CTL projects need significantly more water supplies than other energy development projects, adding that there will be very little water waste in Shenhua Group’s project, since most water will be re-used.

In addition, Wu said that patty residue from the project will be used as the feedstock of a power plant.

CTL projects are believed to produce much more carbon dioxide than conventional crude refining.

According to Wu, 44.61 percent of carbon produced by the feedstock for this project becomes carbon dioxide, meaning the project will emit 4.16 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, or 3.75 tons for each ton of oil product output and half a ton for each barrel of oil output.

However, Wu said that over 70 percent of the carbon dioxide output from this project will have a carbon dioxide concentration as high as 92.15 percent, which means it will be easy to utilize for other purposes. Wu said Shenhua Group has already initiated talks with West Virginia University about treatment of carbon dioxide emissions.

In addition, Wu said that because the price of crude oil on the international market is still at a very high level, Shenhua Group’s project will be profitable. He said it will be economically feasible if the price of crude oil price stands at over $40 per barrel.

Interfax Commentary: As China depends more and more on oil imports, coal chemical development, including CTL technology, will be important to the country’s energy security. Three demonstration projects are now under construction and will start operation in 2008 and 2009.

It is clear that China needs to rely more on its abundant coal reserve to ensure domestic energy supplies, but the government may be cautious when making plans to develop coal chemical projects, especially regarding water supply and whether such processes are the best way to use coal.

This article was originally published by Interfax-China, and is republished with permission. Interfax-China’s team of in-country analysts track China’s industries and markets.  This article is part of comprehensive daily coverage of China’s energy sector. Learn how more about these markets and the opportunities they offer your business. Learn about energy in China through our China Energy Weekly and focused energy reports carbon trading, clean & renewable energy, CTL, oil & gas, and power generation.  Free Trial – Contact Andrew Billard; andrew@interfax.cn or by phone at 86-10-8532-5021 (Beijing, China).

by Gordon Feller, Urban Age Institute, January 18, 2008

Bangladesh has made impressive economic and social strides over the last two decades. It has achieved steady economic growth of around 5% annually, with relatively low inflation and a stable fiscal situation. Population growth and infant mortality rates have declined and primary school enrollment rates, particularly of girls, have improved dramatically. The rate of growth of per capita GDP has improved from less than 2% during the 1980s to over 5% during 1995-05.

Despite these substantial gains, a large unfinished agenda remains in terms of attaining the MDGs, which would require an acceleration of the economic growth rate to 6-7% per annum. Accelerating growth would also require substantially higher levels of investments in infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on the rural areas where the vast majority of the Bangladeshi population lives.

While infrastructure in the rural areas has improved, particularly for water supply and roads, Bangladesh has a particularly high demand for expansion of rural electrification services. Factors such as remoteness, inadequate load demand and resource constraints for expanding the power infrastructure are major barriers to electrification in the rural areas.  These areas currently use kerosene and diesel for their lighting and electricity requirements.

At present, about 38% of the Bangladeshi population has access to electricity and per capita electricity consumption is about 133 kWh which is one of the lowest in the world.  Nearly 75% of the population is rural and only about 30% of the rural households have access to grid electricity. The current rate of expansion in electrification is only about 400,000 new households gaining access every year and at such rate it would take more than 40 years to reach all households. Rural electricity access rates have to increase dramatically to accomplish the Government’s stated goal of providing universal electricity access by 2020. Government has encouraged implementing off-grid renewable energy technologies, such as solar home systems (SHS) and micro-wind power systems in coastal areas, and mini-hydro projects in the mountainous regions as a priority.

Presently, three state-owned utilities under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources are responsible for electricity development in the country. These are:

i) Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), responsible for generation and transmission of power in the country and distribution in urban areas, except the area under Greater Dhaka,

ii) Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA), responsible for distribution of electricity in the greater Dhaka area including the metropolitan city of Dhaka; and,

iii) Rural Electrification Board (REB), responsible for distribution of electricity in rural areas through a network of more than 60 Palli Bidyut Samitis (PBSs) or rural electricity cooperatives.

Government strategy emphasizes promoting off-grid options in areas that are unsuitable for grid expansion. It has made a good start by eliminating import duty on SHS in April 2000. The strategy emphasizes the pivotal role of well functioning rural systems for the Government’s off grid promotion strategy and endorses the approach to use well-functioning rural community based organizations (CBOs) to leverage grass-roots reach and establish credibility to improve electricity provision significantly.

The objective of this Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project is to contribute to sustainable development through the provision of renewable solar electricity to households not connected to the electricity grid and thereby reduce the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by displacing kerosene and diesel use for lighting and off-grid electricity generation.

The project will contribute to the sustainable development of Bangladesh with a particular emphasis on the rural population, which is generally poorer.  In addition to reducing GHG emissions, the project would have significant other social, economic and environmental benefits.  Bank’s involvement in supporting this project is therefore considered highly appropriate.

The project envisages installing 929,169 SHSs all across Bangladesh between 2007 and 2015.  The SHS will provide facilities for lighting, TV and radio and comprise of: (a) a Solar Module (10 to 120wp); (b) battery ( 47 Ah to 130 Ah); (c) Charge Controller; (d) fluorescent tube lights with special electronic ballasts; (e) mounting structure; (f) installation kit; and (g) cables and connecting devices. The capacity of individual SHS will vary according to consumer choice and demand. The cost of SHS would be recovered through monthly instalments over a period of up to 4 years which will be within the affordable capacity of the targeted consumers.  Upon full implementation in year 2015, the project activity will replace 20,075 kilo litres per annum of kerosene usage, equivalent to an emissions reduction of 48,380.75 tonnes CO2 per annum and 16,600,500 KWh/ year of electricity generation using diesel generators.

The project will be implemented by Grameen Shakti (GS) which develops, introduces and popularizes renewable energy technologies for sustainable energy solutions, particularly Solar PV systems, aiming to reduce poverty, improve living standards and protect the environment.  Over the last decade GS has installed about 77,000 SHS with combined capacities of 15.8 MW and more than 1,650 SHSs are installed each month.  It has also set up 120 offices for service delivery and performance monitoring, and has a research unit for improvement of the overall efficiency of the system and ancillaries. GS is currently serving more than 275,000 beneficiaries through its 120 offices spread over 58 districts of Bangladesh.

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.