By Philip Stott

The highly-respected Lausanne-based Institute for Management Development (IMD) has just issued its 20th anniversary ‘World Competitiveness Yearbook 2008’.  It is not a pleasant read for the UK.  The IMD report downgrades the UK’s position against its global rivals on the crucial factor of economic performance, from seventh out of 55 countries to an alarming sixteenth. And the cause of this decline? Yes, you have guessed it - the rising tax burden and worsening business environment.

I could go on and on, about higher food, petrol, and energy prices. But the point is already painfully clear. When times were good -"nice" to employ Mervyn King’s acronymic word - we could just about stomach nonsensical ‘Green’ trumpery over things like the Climate Change Levy and ‘Green’ taxes, which did nothing whatsoever about climate change, but which ‘sustained’ politicians in their pontificating about “Saving the Planet”. By stark contrast, in the present challenging world economy, such follies, such self-inflicted burdens, have, recalling the words of Benjamin Franklin - “even a small hole can sink a big ship” - , morphed into the iceberg that could well help to hole H.M.S. Britannia below the water-line. 

When metro-media-anti-business folk witter on incessantly about the imponderables of ‘global warming’, I get a queasy, sinking feeling. We are sailing blindly into an economic iceberg. We are unthinkingly blunting our competitive edge in the world; we are imposing more and more burdens on industry and on business, especially on small businesses, while others do not; we are forcing retrogressive costs and taxes onto the poorer of society; we are neo-colonially hindering development; and, we are losing power and influence in a world in which, as Carl Mortished so tellingly reminds us: “… the flow of oil, food and raw materials will shift increasingly towards China and India, rather than towards America and Europe. Life will become more expensive and more difficult for Europeans.”

Indeed, it will. Self-indulgent ‘Green’ trumpery can have no place in the real-world economic battles that lie ahead. This is no computer model, and it is no comfort that France may fare worse than us. The political party which grasps this truth first, and is then straight and honest with the electorate about the limitations of ‘Green’ policies, will not only improve Britain’s position, but, in the longer run, could well hone its own competitive, political edge as the British public returns to basics. It is time to state clearly that I, for one, will vote for the major party with least damaging ‘Green’ trumpery. We need a ‘Rational Party’, and urgently. We require a Captain who can see the looming economic threat - an iceberg that will not melt under ‘global warming’ hot air. We have a titanic task before us. Read more here.

Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography.

Icecap note: We can only hope and pray our next president and the congress will heed the lessons learned across the Atlantic before hitting our own icebergs and sinking our economy. The true science does not support the proposed, misguided efforts.

By Bob Webster WEBCommentary

I’ve been a long-time skeptic of global warming/climate change alarmism. I’ve written many times about the folly of the IPCC/Gore claim that human emissions of CO2 will bring about “catastrophic” change for human society. Well, I now freely admit I was wrong - but not for the reasons most often cited by alarmists.

I’ve been having an interesting exchange on a CO2 alarmists’ blog about the dangers human emissions of CO2 pose for future climate. While the exchange has generally been cordial and it has certainly been interesting while providing great insight into the rationale most alarmists agree too, I have yet to find the proverbial “smoking gun” that actually makes their case. Nevertheless, I do have to agree with them about one thing. The danger and cost to human society from climate change will be catastrophic and is, apparently, unavoidable.

But ironically, while the catastrophe to which I refer is unquestionably human-caused, it is completely avoidable. Therein lies the rub. The danger is not from a catastrophe arising from soaring temperatures and human misery that alarmists claim will follow (a highly debatable proposition). The catastrophe that seems unstoppable is the human misery that will unquestionably arise from the massive costs of soaring imprudent government regulation of CO2 emissions in the form of Gore-enriching “cap and trade” schemes that will, in the end, provide no discernable impact on global climate.

Indeed, it would be quite proper to term our Imperial Congress’s pursuit of CO2 emission schemes nothing short of “insane.” Congressional insanity is nothing new, but its costs this time will be catastrophic to the economy and well-being of every citizen of the US. No matter. They’ve all imbibed the “Cool-Aid” of human-caused “global warming” (despite the recent cooling climate trend) in Washington. Even the normally rational Newt Gingrich has flipped out over global warming. Evidently, the slick multi-million dollar campaign of the alarmists, added to the pervasive media bias, has made this propaganda campaign the greatest success since Nazi Germany’s use of the tool in the 1930s. We can all rest assured that the cost to humans of this propaganda campaign will be equally devastating as the cost to deal with Nazi Germany was. The difference today is that people do not seem to have the will to put up a fight. Read more here.

Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel Webster’s brother Ezekiel. Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.

Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior

But rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.  This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, “I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.”

Kempthorne further stated, “While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting.  Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective.  That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”

In making the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, Kempthorne also announced he was using the authority provided in Section 4(d) of the ESA to develop a rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear.  This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.

To make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the ESA with respect to the polar bear.  This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way. Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action. The Department will issue a Solicitor’s Opinion further clarifying these points.

The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability. The conservation measures provide that the production, interstate sale, and export of native handicrafts by Alaska natives may continue and that the subsistence harvest of polar bears is not affected. See more of the ruling and 4d here. See Senator Inhofe’s EPW reaction here. To show that the polar bears safety was never the real concern of environmentalists but really the ability to impose restrictions on energy sources and providers see the Sierra Club reaction here. To show that the polar bears safety was never the real concern of environmentalists but really the ability to impose restrictions on energy sources and providers see the Sierra Club reaction here.