By World Climate Report

Three bills have been introduced to Congress which have as a goal to slow the rate of global temperature rise, and in doing so, avert some type of putative global climate catastrophe. They propose to do so by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

At the requst of Senators Bingaman and Spector, the EPA has analyzed the effectiveness these bills as measured by the net impact each will have ameliorating the rise of global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (and thus global climate change) by the end of this century. What they found was certainly not encouraging, at least for anyone who thinks that the U.S. alone can have any impact on global climate via new regulation of emissions. All three require massive cut-backs in U.S greenhouse gas emissions—an impossible task with existing technology (assuming that is, that the current resistance to nuclear power is not swiftly overcome or that we wish to remain a first world country):

• Bingaman-Specter (S. 1766) calls for reducing covered emissions to 60% below 2006 levels in 2050,

• Lieberman-McCain (S. 280) calls for reducing covered emissions to 60% below 1990 levels in 2050,

• Kerry-Snowe (S. 485) calls for reducing covered emissions to at least 65% below 1990 levels in 2050.

EPA finds that the climate bills will lower the projected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 719 ppm in 2100 down to either 696 ppm for bills S.1776 and S.280 or 694ppm for S.485. Since the temperature savings scales roughly with the CO2 concentration savings (especially at these small quantities), the climate bills “save” about 60% of 0.15ºC or just less than one tenth, that’s 0.1, degrees Celsius. One tenth of one degree Celsius for an enormous economic hit—the EPA calculated.  Read more here.

By Wall Street Jounal Opinion Journal

Al Gore no longer needs to make claims about creating the Internet, because the former Vice President deserves much of the credit for creating an entire new industry--the global warming business. And like the energy barons of an earlier age, Mr. Gore has the chance to achieve enormous wealth after being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.

There’s no shortage of new capital pouring into alternative energy projects these days. According to the National Venture Capital Association, “clean tech” start-ups attracted more than $800 million in venture capital last quarter, a new record. What’s not clear is whether these are fundamentally energy ventures or political ventures. The Manhattan Institute’s Peter Huber, a former engineering professor at MIT, exaggerates only slightly when he says that “Basically, ‘alternative’ means stuff that nobody actually uses.” If that turns out to be true, then alternative energy companies could struggle for market share without government assistance.

Those doubts exist even for the companies backed by Kleiner Perkins. After making more than a dozen “green tech” investments, Kleiner is still waiting for its first exit. According to a Kleiner spokeswoman, many companies in its portfolio are “in stealth mode.” The firm will “neither name nor comment on them.” Read more here.