May 2012

American Public Radio’s Marketplace Morning Report has yet another report today on how U.S. demand for corn to make into ethanol is causing a disruption to the food supply in countries like Mexico.

Corn prices have risen 300% is recent months, putting the squeeze on millions of poor Mexicans who depend on tortillas as a dietary staple. The government has attempted to cap prices, but we know how well price controls on high-demand commodities generally work out. One wonders how many families in the developing world will have to go hungry before the ethanol mandate crown begins to have second thoughts about gouging corn prices.

So the IPCC report that’s going to be released on Friday isn’t gloomy enough, eh?  It will find less projected temperature rise and less predicted sea level rise than it did in 2001. Good news, no?
Not even close.  That simply isn’t good enough for those who want to break the back of the world’s energy system, so they have to attack it.  For years, global warming alarmists built up ‘the consensus of scientists’ as the answer to legitimate concerns of climate skeptics.  Now that they have seemingly successfully shut skeptical voices out of the debate on global warming, they have embarked on a process of delegitimization of that very consensus.  It is too cautious, they argue, too bureaucratic.  They, the alarmists, are the only voices of truth in the debate and anyone else is incompetent, a fraud or a denier.  The ‘consensus’ scientists who went along with the alarmists will now find themselves the targets of abuse, insinuation and ad hominem attacks.

Welcome to the club.

President Bush in Peoria, IL today gave one of two speeches scheduled on the economy (the next will be in NYC tomorrow). He addressed issues such as taxes, trade, technology, energy, health care, education policy. Here’s part of what the President said about the importance of trade:

We’ve pursued trade agreements. The way it works is, you have bilateral trade agreements, in other words, with the United States and, say, Chile. And we have regional trade agreements and world trade agreements. One world trade agreement is called the Doha Round of the WTO — it’s basically attempting to make sure that everybody gets treated the same way, in the same fashion, so that the world markets are open.

Again, I repeat to you, I strongly believe that if we can compete with people on a level playing field, nobody can compete with us. And so the key is to make sure the rules are fair.

I’m always suspicious when politicians mention “fair” trade and “level playing field.” Translate as “fair” to one side (us) and not the other, and “bring the other side down to our level.”

He didn’t mention asking Congress to renew Trade Promotion Authority though. Maybe he’ll do that in NYC tomorrow.

Are you an aspiring journalist for Reuters? If so, you need to know how to “bury the lede,” which is insider journo-talk for ignoring the real story in favor of the story you want to tell.

Here’s a great example. From the report – “millions to go hungry, waterless” – you’d think that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had found that global warming was intensifying.

Then we have this:

The panel is to release a report on Friday in Paris forecasting global temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a “best estimate” of a 3C (5.4 F) rise.

Wait a minute. What did the last IPCC report say?

The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100.

Uh? You mean, not only has the new IPCC report found less warming, but it finds less warming since pre-industrial times (ie around 1800) to 2100 than the last report said would happen from 1990 to 2100.

Now that’s a story.

UPDATE:  The Reuters correspondent confused climate sensitivity with temperature projections.  That means that this post is, well, just plain wrong.  I should have spotted that.  Sorry.

There is a respectable, if (we feel) incorrect, case to be made for the idea of raising taxes to lower demand for an activity or product that causes externalities.  Politicians and economists who support this idea call themselves The Pigou Club, after the British economist who first suggested the theory.

No such respectability applies to the snuffling snouts that are trying to get into the ethanol trough.  Appropriately, Arnold Kling suggests we call politicians (few economists there) who support this boondoggle The Pig Club.  We heartily endorse this suggestion.

I post this article, despite its breathless credulity about the imminence of a world beyond petroleum, because it reveals how Washington works. Bush and the corn lobby will ask Congress for a biofuels mandate that drives up the cost of gasoline. Congress and the Big Three will ask Bush for tax credits to sell more cars that use the more costly fuel.
Gas substitutes boost the flex-fuel car

Soon, alternative fuels might be made from corn, soybeans, and plant fiber – and new cars would be able to run on them.

By Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor, January 26, 2007

Prospects are brightening for a big change at your local service station.

Instead of just regular, plus, and premium, gas stations in a few years may well be offering fuel made from corn, soybeans, and plant fiber. And new cars would be engineered to run on them.

Following President Bush’s call Tuesday for a 20 percent cut in gasoline consumption, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have unveiled legislation that would require automakers to build “flex-fuel” cars that could burn the various alternative fuels.

The new legislation, which still must work its way through Congress, has some powerful backers. Energy-security advocates like its emphasis on reducing reliance on foreign oil. Farm-state Democrats and Republicans like its boost of corn-based ethanol. Even the Big Three automakers like the move to flex-fuel technology because it might give them an advantage over foreign automakers building hybrid cars.

“This plan now waiting in Congress dovetails nicely with the president’s statements, helping achieve his goals and doing even more,” says Anne Korin, chairwoman of Set America Free, an energy-security coalition based in Washington, D.C. “The amazing thing is that I believe there’s actually a pretty good chance it will pass both houses and get to the president’s desk.”

The push for alternative fuels is coming from several forces. Last November, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers met with Mr. Bush in a White House chat to talk about the challenges facing their industry. One idea that surfaced: by 2012, half of all their new vehicles could be flex-fuel models.

These cars and trucks could burn a range of alternatives to gasoline — from ethanol made from corn to methanol made from coal. That kind of push could help meet Bush’s goal of reducing US gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

After the president announced that goal at Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Ford announced its support for the effort in a statement, pointing out it had already produced 2 million flex-fuel vehicles.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents foreign as well as domestic automakers, is taking a more nuanced stand.

“Energy security is important to the alliance, and we’ve already put more than 9 million alternative-fuel automobiles on the road, including hybrid, diesel, and ethanol-capable vehicles,” says spokesman Wade Newton.

The bipartisan legislation in Congress has some of the same aims as the president. It aims to slash US dependence on oil by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2017 — a 10 percent reduction on expected consumption. That cut is roughly equivalent to the White House goal of 20 percent in gasoline consumption (which represents about half of US oil use).

But the bill provides an explicit road map for achieving a reduction of 7 million barrels a day by 2026. It, for example:

– Provides big tax incentives for motorists to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles. Because these hybrids rely far more on electric power (and less on gasoline) than today’s hybrids, they would qualify for bigger tax breaks than today’s models do.

– Ramps up oil displacement with biofuels by, among other things, offering tax breaks to gas stations that offer ethanol and other fuels.

– Establishes a detailed oil-conservation program, which would include “oil savings” audits of federal agencies.

– Boosts research on ethanol made from plant fiber and other noncorn materials by $1 billion over five years.

– Offers tax credits, loan guarantees, and grants to automakers and suppliers that retool factories to build more efficient vehicles.

Congress, of course, is awash in energy bills that go nowhere. In fact, earlier versions of the current legislation enjoyed good bipartisan support in the last Congress. But they stumbled because they became ensnared in issues such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling — and drilling off the Florida coast. With Democrats now in charge of Congress, both issues seem off the table, giving the bill room to get going, observers say.

The biggest question marks are in the House of Representatives where the bill’s success may depend on garnering support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — as well as the level of opposition from Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, whose committee is known for blocking bills Detroit automakers don’t like.

But especially if some modest White House support for the bill can be generated, the bill will make it through that committee, supporters say. There are already 60 cosponsors from both parties with the prospects for another 100 or so, observers say.

“I’ve talked with the president about this bill before, and I know he supports its goals,” says Rep. Jack Kingston (R) of Georgia, the bill’s cosponsor along with Rep. Eliot Engel (D) of New York. “If the president is looking for a legacy, shifting the nation away from oil to alternative fuels, it’s sitting there waiting for him.”

In the Senate, prospects appear even stronger. The bill got critical support in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee where committee chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico is a cosponsor. Other key Democratic cosponsors include Sens. Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

One key stumbling block from the old version of the House bill has been excised: a provision to get rid of the current tariff that makes it more expensive to import ethanol. Even though energy hawks wanted it badly, the provision was a deal breaker because ethanol manufacturers — especially those in the critical state of Iowa where presidential aspirants must campaign first — don’t want it.

That move has generated some criticism. “This legislation recognizes the dire geopolitical threat to us from imported oil,” says Ariel Cohen, an energy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. “What I find amiss is that it does not address the need to bring into the US the most competitive ethanol, sugar-cane ethanol [from Brazil and Caribbean nations], which is now penalized with punitive tariffs.”

Over at Townhall.com, columnist Mary Katharine Ham comments on the premiere of the documentary Mine Your Own Business (the screening was co-sponsored by CEI). She quotes the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Mark Fenn, who in the film makes this gem of an admission:

“In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They’re not nutrition, specifically. They’re not health in a lot of cases. It’s not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don’t consider that to be important…People are economically disadvantaged, people have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles…then you tell me who is rich and who is poor…”

She also includes video footage of filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney facing protesters from Greenpeace who gathered outside the venue. Worth reading and worth watching. Enjoy.

Some global warming alarmists, including a few scientists, are complaining about the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Apparently, the twenty-odd page Summary for Policymakers isn’t alarming enough for them. Thus, after years of establishing the IPCC reports as representing the scientific consensus — from which there is no appeal and upon which thousands of the world’s top scientists work and about which all agree that it’s perfect — now the alarmists are trying out a new song and dance. To wit: The Assessment Reports are the work of the establishment and therefore can only come to very “conservative” conclusions so as not to offend anyone.

Tell that to Dr. R. K. Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, who announced early in his tenure that the problem with the first three Assessment Reports is that they didn’t have enough scary material to promote the Kyoto agenda and promised that the Fourth would be different. That may still be the case since the thousand-or-so page Working Group 1 report won’t be published until May or June.

But the Summary for Policymakers, which is not produced by the scientists but by the member governments of the IPCC, is due to be released on Friday, 2nd February. Apparently, it doesn’t have any smoking gun headline comparable to the now discredited hockey stick that was featured in the Summary for the Third Assessment Report in 2001 or Ben Santer’s intentionally misleading graph featured in the Second. That’s too bad for the alarmists because the Summary is what the media read and what the public hears about.
The funny thing about the claims of scientific consensus — and especially the references to the IPCC as representing that consensus — is that it only works to silence people who are less alarmist. Al Gore, Sir David King, and James Hansen (a former elected leader, a chemist, and an astronomer, respectively) can make outlandish claims about sea level rise, but if I, as a non-climatologist, refer to the authoritative Third Assessment Report, which predicts 20 inches by 2100, not 20 feet (or 80 in Hansen’s case), guess who’s outside the mainstream? I’m called a denier.

The claims about the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets melting are less likely than the claim that the world is about to enter a cooling period, which claim at least has some research supporting it. If winter low temperatures rise in the polar regions, as is predicted by greenhouse theory, there won’t be any melting because it will still be below freezing, but there will be more days when it’s warm enough to snow. Of course, on the other hand, the ice sheets have been melting and sea levels have been rising at varying rates since the end of the last ice age and will continue to do so until the next ice age begins. So eventually Gore et al. could be proved right, but I’d rather see a few more thousand years of melting than a new ice age.

It’s interesting to look at the complainers. Professor John Turner talks about the Antarctic Peninsula, where it has been warming significantly, but nearly all the ice is on the continent, where temperatures have been generally stable or cooling, according to the British Antarctic Survey weather station data (easily found on their website). Is he being intentionally misleading? Professor Lonnie Thompson is not a polar ice expert, but a tropical glaciers expert, and his claims in the public debate seem to go far beyond his research. Dr. Robert Corell is an oceanographer who spent his career as a scientific administrator. He was chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which redefined the Arctic in order to show a bigger warming trend and cut off the temperature record before 1950 so that they wouldn’t have to explain why it was at least as warm in the 1930s as today in the Arctic (the reason claimed is a hoot: there weren’t enough weather stations before 1950 — even though there were more then than in recent decades). Michael MacCracken is I believe a computer modeller, whose main claim to fame is that he was one of the top people who produced the infamous National Assessment on the Impacts of Climate Change (2001), which is a bad joke and which was the target of two moderately successful CEI lawsuits in federal court.

Cuban exiles have long been looking forward to the day when their homeland is no longer goverend by aging revolutionary Fidel Castro, but now the city of Miami (where more than a few ex-cubanos find themselves living) is going beyond wistful daydreams and making concrete plans for Castro Is Dead Day:

The city of Miami is planning an official celebration at the Orange Bowl whenever Cuban president Fidel Castro dies.
Discussions by a committee appointed earlier this month by the city commission to plan the event have even covered issues such as a theme to be printed on T-shirts, what musicians would perform, the cost and how long the celebration would last.

Such a gathering has long been part of the city’s plan for Castro’s death, but firming up the specifics has been more urgent since Castro became ill last summer and turned over power to his brother, Raul.

As much as I’d like to see Castro out of business, isn’t there something odd about an official government body deciding how free people will be expected to celebrate the demise of a socialist dictator? I say leave the t-shirt slogans up to the street vendors and limit the government’s involvement to discouraging celebratory gunfire into the air. It is Miami, after all.