April 03, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345969,00.html
George Bush appears to have beaten Al Gore again.
In the very same week that Gore launched a $300 million public relations
campaign to convince Americans that "together we can solve the climate
crisis," prominent climate alarmist Tom Wigley essentially endorsed
President Bush's approach to global warming while criticizing that of
Gore's co-Nobelist, the IPCC.
In an article entitled "Dangerous Assumptions" published in Nature on
April 3, Wigley writes that the technology challenge presented by the
goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations "has been
seriously underestimated by the IPCC, diverting attention from policies
that could directly stimulate technological innovation."
Wigley, even though he is a lead author of the most recent IPCC re****t,
describes that do***ent as relying on "unrealistic" and "unachievable"
CO2 emissions scenarios - even for the present decade. For the period
2000-2010, the IPCC assumes that energy and fossil fuel efficiency is
increasing.
But Wigley points out that in recent years energy and fossil fuel
efficiency have decreased, reversing the trend of previous decades. One
reason for this phenomenon, says Wigley, is the economic transformation
occurring in the world, particularly in Asia.
Whereas the IPCC assumes in its emissions scenarios that CO2 emissions
in Asia are increasing by 2.6 percent to 4.8 percent annually, China's
emissions actually are increasing at a rate of 11 percent to 13 percent
annually.
"Because of these dramatic changes in the global economy, it is likely
that we have only just begun to experience the surge in global energy
use associated with rapid development. Such trends are in stark contrast
to the optimism of the near-future IPCC projections and seem unlikely to
alter course soon," Wigley writes.
As a consequence, "enormous advances in energy technology will be needed
to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at acceptable levels," he
concludes. Wigley faults the IPCC for assuming these technological
advances will occur spontaneously as opposed to creating the conditions
for innovation to occur.
So between George Bush and Al Gore, whose approach to the climate
controversy is more consistent with Wigley's recommendation?
In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore preached to us about downsizing our
lifestyles. He wants us to take colder showers, hang our clothes outside
to dry, avoid driving, use less heating and air conditioning and
generally reduce our standard of living.
On his public relations campaign's Web site, Gore urges the shuttering
of coal-fired power plants, which provide 50 percent of U.S. electricity
needs; the adoption of so-called "clean energy technologies" such as
cost-inefficient solar and wind power and hybrid cars; energy
efficiency, which only would reduce energy use by marginal amounts; and
government mandates for not-ready-for-prime-time taxpayer-subsidized
alternative energy sources.
In the "Clean Energy Economy" section of his Web site, Gore even calls
for more sidewalks and bike paths - hardly a technological innovation
that will provide measurably more energy with less emissions.
In contrast, President Bush since 2005 has promoted technological
development in the form of the Asian-Pacific Partner****p for Clean
Development and Climate Change.
In this non-U.N. group, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Republic
of Korea and the United States have agreed to work together and with
private-sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national
air-pollution reduction and climate change in ways that promote
sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.
President Bush also may have advanced the technology ball in another,
more subtle, way.
The Department of Energy recently pulled out of FutureGen, a
public-private partner****p to build a first-of-its-kind coal-fueled,
near-zero emissions power plant. The ostensible reason for the federal
pullout was the increasing cost of the $1.5 billion plant, most of which
was to be borne by the government.
But it very well may be that FutureGen was sacrificed as part of a Bush
administration effort to pressure Congress to take affirmative action on
nuclear power, a true technological solution for concerns about
atmospheric CO2.
Finally, and much to his credit, President Bush (so far) has avoided the
sort of futile mandatory clampdown on CO2 emissions sup****ted by Gore
but that Wigley realizes will be impossible to implement without halting
vital economic growth.
You almost have to feel bad for Al Gore - being outsmarted on his own
home turf by George Bush. But there still might be time for Gore to set
things right.
Just last week the U.N.'s World Food Program launched an "extraordinary
emergency appeal" for donations of at least $500 million in the next
four weeks to avoid rationing food aid in response to the spiraling cost
of food - a problem brought about in part by Gore's climate alarmism,
which helped spur the lurch to biofuels such as corn-based ethanol.
British billionaire Richard Branson, for example, credits Gore for
pu****ng him to make a $3 billion pledge in 2006 to replace fossil fuels
with biofuels.
While campaigning in 2006 for Democratic senatorial candidate Amy
Klobuchar, Gore asked, "What is so complicated about choosing fuel that
comes from Minnesota farmers rather than from the Middle East?" while
simultaneously asserting that Klobuchar would "provide leader****p in the
fight against global warming."
So, Al Gore, rather than wasting $300 million on a public relations
campaign to promote an unrealistic and impractical approach to the
dubious problem of manmade climate change, why not donate that money to
the U.N. and help prevent real people from starving today?
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a
junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"How does a small increase in a very small component [of CO2] have such
a large apparent effect [On Climate]? The truth is that no one has yet
shown that it does." Don Aitkin
|
