Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere --the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries. The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass—almost 110 million square kilometres—enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth—the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe’s biota was not even considered. Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did—on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.” Read more here.

By Marc Morano, EPW Blog

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) claimed today that Democrats had the support of 54 U.S. Senators for the Climate Tax Bill. Directly contradicting Boxer’s assertion is a letter signed on June 6 by ten Democratic Senators explicitly stating they “cannot support final passage” of the Climate Tax Bill. The letter indicates that Boxer would apparently only have had at most 45 votes today to support final passage of the bill. (Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was absent for today’s vote, had previously voted against bringing the bill to the floor on June 2.) Boxer alleged in a June 6 statement that Democrats “had 54 Senators come down on the side of tackling this crucial issue now” following the today’s cloture vote of 48-36 which effectively killed the bill. But the signed letter by ten Democratic Senators tells a much different story.

“As Democrats from regions of the country that will be most immediately affected by climate legislation, we want to share our concerns with the bill that is currently before the Senate. We commend your leadership in attempting to address one the most significant threats to this and future generations; however, we cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute in its current form,” ten Democratic Senators wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Boxer.

The ten Democrats Senators were: Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Webb (D-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Clair McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Ben Nelson (D-FL).

Of the ten Senators, only Senator Brown voted against cloture today, which effectively killed the bill this Congressional session. Boxer’s claim that today’s vote “proves that our nation is ready” to support global warming cap-and-trade legislation fails a basic arithmetic test. Read blog here.

See CBS story on the Dems Yank Global Warming Bill.

Wall Street Journal Political Diary

Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.

Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. “With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,” says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. “This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

It’s a good analogy. Originally, Hillary health care had towering levels of support, but once people looked at the cost and complexity they cringed. Jobs were on the mind yesterday of Senator Arlen Specter, who has endorsed a tamer version of cap-and-trade. “Workers in Pennsylvania worry that this will send jobs to China,” he tells me. They’re smart to worry. Look no further than the failure of the Kyoto countries to live up to their promised emissions cuts. Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, tells me: “The Europeans are so far behind schedule, it is almost inconceivable that they will meet their targets.” Even John McCain, a cap-and-trade original co-sponsor, now says that this scheme won’t fly until China and India sign on - which could be never.

Senators also criticized Warner-Lieberman’s failure to clearly specify what would happen with the vast revenues the climate bill would generate - some $1 trillion over the first decade, which environmental groups wanted as a slush fund to finance “green technologies.” Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire insisted the proceeds be used for other tax cuts, like the elimination of the corporate income tax. The Natural Resources Defense Council desperately tried to persuade Congress in the 11th hour that the expensive price tag is a bargain because “the cost of inaction” would reach $1.8 trillion by 2100 due to increased hurricanes and rising oceans - an argument without a shred of scientific or fiscal credibility. Read more here.