2007 EPA Global Warming Report

Bush-era Global Warming Report Released

by Deb Powers

The environmental world is buzzing this morning with the news that the Obama administration has released a 2007 EPA report on global warming. The report was sequestered by the Bush administration, apparently because its findings were in opposition to the Bush administration's environmental policies regarding global warming and greenhouse gasses. The report is dry as dust to read, filled with legalese and definitions, but when you strip away the awkward language, the findings are unmistakable, as summarized by the following summation:

In sum, the Administrator is proposing to find that elevated levels of GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public welfare.

That rather bland statement summarizes the considerably darker contents of the report. This is a list of some of the anticipated (and already starting) effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including CO2 - in the atmosphere.

Observed Changes to the Environment from Global Warming

These are changes that have already been observed - change that can be directly attributed to global warming.

• Changes in precipitation patterns - more rain in some places, less rain in others, longer rainy seasons, etc
• Coastal sea levels have risen as much as .75 meters
• More extreme high AND low temperatures throughout the U.S.
• Changing growing seasons and regions for many crops
• Increased instances of insect outbreaks that affect crops
• Higher rates of wildfire outbreaks

Projected Changes to the Environment Due to Global Warming

• Increased coastal flooding from storm surges
• An increase in vector-borne diseases
• Increased interior flooding from run-off and increased precipitation
• An increase in heat-related deaths in dry, hot areas
• A possible decrease in cold-related deaths
• More intense weather events like hurricanes
• More severe and longer heat waves
• An increased strain on water resources in vulnerable areas
• Increased precipitation run-off
• Decrease in air quality, particularly in urban areas, with resulting increase in the severity of respiratory diseases among the population

The report is frightening, but the truly disturbing part is the fact that it was suppressed in an effort to cripple policy decisions. Why would someone want to hide the fact that these changes - whether or not one agrees that they are caused by man - endanger this entire country in ways that mot people don't even consider? The answer is simple of course - it's all about money.

Exceprts from this report are being used to support the push for the Climate Change Bill - aka the Cap and Trade Bill. The opposition to that bill focuses largely on how much money it will cost to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gasses on our environment, and to retool our society to operate in ways that decrease the amount of greenhouse gas that we put into the atmosphere. Withholding the report disguises the fact that this issue is not about money. It is not about who caused global warming and whether we should do something about it. It is not even about saving the planet from some far-off doom at our own hands.

It is, pure and simple, about saving lives and defending our country from the ravages of those who only care about the money. And when it comes to saving lives or saving money, I'll take lives every time.

Global Warming Revolt

Utilities Leave Chamber Over Global Warming

by Deb Powers

Over the past week, something very interesting has started to happen in the highest echelon of US business supporters. The US Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest pro-business lobbying and PR groups on the national scene. It boasts hundreds of thousands of member businesses, from one person real estate offices to major department stores, and claims to represent the interests of US businesses, small and large. Among its wealthiest constituents are energy companies that provide public utilities - electric and gas companies with familiar names.

The US Chamber of Commerce routinely takes a pro-business stance on most national issues. They are for tort reform - often at the expense of individuals who have been harmed by industry - and often anti-environmental causes. Specifically, the Chamber opposes all cap and trade efforts, and most other regulations that would require their largest member businesses to change the way that they use energy. To that end, the Chamber made news this summer when it issued a demand that the US Environmental Protection Agency convene a series of public hearings to examine the science behind climate change theories, quite literally and openly calling for the climate change equivalent of the Scopes monkey trials.

 The Chamber's attempt to force the US government to hold open hearings on what is, throughout the world, accepted and established science, is little more than an attempt to ensure wider spread of the manufactured controversy. The evidence is there. The facts are clear. Every major scientific body in the world is in agreement that the planet is warming over time and that the warming trend is directly traceable to man's activities. More specifically, the warming trend has greatly accelerated in the period of time since man has been using fossil fuels in earnest. The only groups that dispute those facts are those who face the most loss if we shift to using other sources of energy generation - the coal and oil companies and those funded by the coal and oil industry.

Of course, it's all about money. Cap and trade policies will push the prices of energy generated by coal and oil higher and make energy from renewable energy sources more expensive. They would eventually reduce the need for coal-fired energy plants, which are the source of the majority of US energy. For that reason, utility companies - which have a hefty investment in owning and holding those coal-fired plants - have traditionally aligned themselves with the Chamber of Commerce against many major changes in energy policy. There are exceptions, of course. Utility companies have traditionally favored energy policies that encourage conservation of energy rather than those that represent a fundamental change in the way that energy is produced and distributed.

And yet last week, three major US utility companies very publicly canceled their memberships in the US Chamber of Commerce to protest the Chamber's "embarrassing" position on climage change and global warming science.

San Francisco's PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) led the revolt, publicly withdrawing from the Chamber because of its "extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics" in the public debate over the US climate change bill. In a two page letter, PG&E chairman Peter Darbee, called the Chamber's tactics "disingenuous" and "dismaying".

PG&E was followed closely by PNM, which provides power for New Mexico, and Chicago's Exelon. Word from inside the industry is that there is  growing pressure on other utility companies and major corporations to withdraw from the Chamber in protest.

What inspired the defection from the US Chamber?

A hint of the answer may be in a public comment made by Exelon CEO John Rowe. "The carbon-based free lunch is over", he said. While he may have have been referring to man's "free lunch" at the expense of the environment, he could just as easily have been referring to the free lunch that coal and oil companies have enjoyed for years, thanks to heavy government subsidies. Those subsidies have contributed to keeping the price of coal and oil energy affordable. New legislation that reduces those subsidies and imposes new fees, shifting the subsidies instead to renewable energy sources, is the writing on the wall. It's nice to know that some companies can actually read it.

UN Climate Change Summit

UN Climate Change Summit

by Deb Powers

Yesterday, world leaders met at the UN in New York for a one day climate change summit. There were some promising signs, a lot of high-flown rhetoric and a lovely closing from UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, who praised the nations for coming together to address and discuss changes that must be made in order to meet climate change goals. Overall, though, the Summit did little to further any goals or make any changes. Instead, it was reflective of some of the biggest stumbling blocks and concerns regarding global warming and climate change.

U.S. President Barack Obama gave a stirring and thought-provoking speech on the responsibility of developed nations to lead the fight against global warming, but critics expressed concern that he has the ability to shepherd meaningful legislation through the US Congress before the December COP20. While a U.S. climate change bill - commonly referred to as the cap-and-trade bill - passed the House of Representatives over the summer, the passage of a similar bill in the Senate is not as assured. Nearly all Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose the bill, which they claim will raise the cost of energy to untenable heights. The member nations of the EU, which have been dealing with high energy prices for decades, are unimpressed by the argument. The EU is urging the US to step up and take the lead on reducing carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, one of the largest pro-business groups in the US is having some troubles of its own over global warming and climate change. As international leaders met in New York to discuss the issues, PG&E, one of the nation's largest utilities, resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its extremist position on climate change. Just a few weeks ago, the Chamber called on the US Environmental Protection Agency to hold public hearings on the validity of the science behind climate change and global warming theories. The Chamber envisions a Scopes monkey trial, which they hope will invalidate the science on which many of the global warming statutes will be based.

 Even as the Chamber attempts to cloud the image and stall efforts to reduce carbon emissions by subjecting established science to a circus-like trial, they are joining other global business leaders in demanding a seat at the table at COP20, claiming that their voices should be heard in the debate of what should be done about the phenomenon whose existence they deny. It seems disingenuous at best, self-serving to the point of subordinating the health of the people and the planet at worst.

The oppostion of business and industry leaders to legislation that will force them to change the way they do business is to be expected. The Chamber of Commerce in the US and similar entities in Canada, would prefer to "shape the conversation" in a way that ensures them continued profits while shifting costs in any direction they can find. To that end, they are putting their support behind "intellectual property" laws that will guarantee the developers of technology that they alone can profit from the technology that they develop. The costs of that development, of course, will be highly subsidized by the government and taxpayers - who will pay twice for it: once for the development, and later for the use of it.

The defection of PG&E from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn't the first, but it is the most visible to date. It sounds a hopeful note - that there may indeed be those in industry - particularly in the energy industry - who see that changing the way we do business, particularly in energy generation, will be profitable in the long run - and in more ways than one.