Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy, CEI
One of the main reasons it’s going to take a 300 million dollar advertising campaign to try to convince Americans to support mandatory reductions in their own energy use is because former VP Al Gore and his Hollywood elite supporters are not providing leadership. Instead they continue to preach using less energy while using enormous amounts of energy in their own lives on frequent private jet flights and the electricity to run huge houses.
When CEI and others have challenged Gore over his hypocrisy, the reply has been, “We buy carbon offsets to take care of it.” But that misses the point. Most Americans are having trouble buying gasoline and paying their electric bills at current prices. Most people can’t afford to pay for the energy they need and then buy carbon offsets, too. If the kind of mandatory reductions in emissions that Gore is promoting are enacted, the resulting higher energy prices will force most Americans to use a lot less energy, while wealthy people including Gore will continue to be able to afford to use the colossal amounts of energy required to support their opulent lifestyles.
Another factor that I think is pushing this 300 million dollar effort is a sense of desperation. Environmental pressure groups have been spending several hundred million dollars a year since the early ‘90s to promote global warming alarmism, and they have very little to show for it. The whole effort is near collapse. And to top it all, global warming has stalled, at least for the moment. Global mean temperatures are flat since Kyoto was negotiated in 1997, even though atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased around 4 per cent. This contradicts all the model predictions. In my view, the global warming bubble is ready to burst, so a 300 million dollar propaganda campaign may be the alarmists’ last chance. Gore and the alarmists have all the money, but reality is not on their side. Read more here.
By Roger Harrabin, BBC Environmental Correspondent
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world. El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina. It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China. Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted. But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century. “When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year,” he said. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” “La Nina is part of what we call ‘variability’. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up.” Experts at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, probably associated with another episode of El Nino. Read more here.
Icecap Note: After originally posting this story with the above headline, the BBC changed the headline to “Global warming ‘dips this year’"perhaps after pressure from editors or others. Later in the day reverted back to original.
By Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming
U.S. Senator John Barrasso , R-Wyo., took aim at attempts to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. “This is a hijacking of the Endangered Species Act for political purposes,” Barrasso said. “It is not just about the polar bear.”
Some claim that global warming is leading to the demise of polar bears. If the polar bear is listed as threatened, anything thought to contribute to global warming could be shut down - even in Wyoming . “We are all concerned about protecting the environment,” Barrasso said. “If the polar bear is listed, the ESA will become a climate change law.” “The consequences of listing the polar bear as a threatened species, and linking it to climate change, would be utterly devastating. There would be no area of the economy left untouched.”
“Virtually every human activity that involves the release of carbon into the atmosphere would be regulated by the federal government. Cities could be sued for not restricting vehicles within the city limits.
An environmental group, the Center for Biodiversity has stated that “the polar bear listing could mean that all U.S. industries emitting large quantities of greenhouse gasses - and requiring a federal permit to do so - will come under the purview of the Endangered Species Act.” “When I see special interest groups using the polar bear as an excuse to shut down traditional energy sources, I am more than skeptical about their real concern for the bear,” Barrasso concluded. Bill Horn, former Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, agreed that under this proposal, Wyoming could be sued for allowing too many vehicles to travel to Jackson Hole or Yellowstone. See John’s Website and press release here.