The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Waxman-Markey All Pain, No Gain

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Waxman-Markey All Pain, No Gain

By Paul Chesser on 5.6.09 @ 3:28PM

I've noted in the past (and friends at the Science and Public Policy Institute have studied ad nauseum) that initiatives pursued by global warming alarmists will accomplish nothing in terms of temperature rise averted.

But instead of boldly proclaiming the great thermostatic results their policies will produce, (alarmists) run away from the science they so adamantly claim that they stand behind.

How? Because they cannot explain how much greenhouse gas reduction -- in whatever quantities they propose -- will cause global temperatures to change. For all their jargon-filled technological conversations about how to "solve the problem," they only measure their goals in terms of emissions averted or reduced -- usually quantified in "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent," or MMtCO2e. How's that for an absurd acronym?

SPPI in particular has examined what various policies (that is, destruction of their economies via the elimination of fossil fuels) pursued by the states would produce in terms of global warming avoided, which is always "undetectable." Environmental scientist Chip Knappenberger, in doing this analysis, applied a model created by former Al Gore adviser Thomas Wigley at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to reach his conclusions.

Well, now Knappenberger has applied the broadly accepted model (I assume it's the same one, but if not, Wigley is still the main scientist behind it) to the proposed Waxman-Markey global warming energy tax legislation. The Beverly Hills Congressman (wouldn't bananas in tailpipes work just as well?) has been selling pieces of the bill off order to buy votes from committee members. Knappenberger found:

The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80 percent, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature “savings” during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC.

Whatta deal: the economy gets hammered by billions of dollars in energy taxes and we spare ourselves maybe a single drop of sweat during the next half-century.

Knappenberger does a good job explaining the modeling (as much as should be necessary for a layman) and the results, so go read for yourself.

Hat tip: Marc Morano.

topics:
Global Warming

View all comments (7) | Leave a comment

Chip Knappenberger| 5.6.09 @ 4:53PM

Paul,

You are correct that the methodology used in the SPPI state reports and the one I employed over at MasterResource in my examination of the climate (non)impacts of the Waxman-Markey bill are related. My most recent work uses the latest-greatest version of Wigley's MAGICC model, but the bottom line is similar to past methodologies--there is little (short of new technologies that are rapidly deployed worldwide) that local/regional/national efforts within the U.S. aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can do to impact the future course of global climate over the 21st century, whatever that may be. It is about time that we all realize this and stop pretending otherwise.

-Chip

smith| 5.7.09 @ 10:33AM

I wish someone would investigate a report from the Heartland institute written by meteorologist Anthony Watts which claims that a survey of most temperature collecting sites for weather and climate data are producing erroneously high temperature data. That would mean that the data which is the foundation of this global warming scam is false. If the data in the US is that screwed up, what could be happening in the rest of the world? Congress is about to destroy our economy with a cap and trade policy that may be based on the biggest scam in history. And just imagine, Al Gore the scammer in chief, received the Nobel prize for it.

David C| 5.7.09 @ 11:32PM

According to Knappenberg's figures, a reduction of about 4 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in emissions by the US government will result in a net change of 0.20 degrees Celsius but a reduction of about 25 GtC by the rest of the world will result in a net change of 2.3 degrees Celsius. How can this be? Knappenberg fails to mention the aggregate effects of emissions. That is, the relationship between emissions and global warming is non-linear, and while one country working alone will have a small effect, several countries working together will have a large effect. In other words, it's not just Asia's problem.

Carbonicus| 5.8.09 @ 2:46PM

David, not sure where you get these figures.

FYI, the three most widely accepted models used for calculating the likely differences in temperature from various CO2 emissions reductions policies have been eerily close in their predictions. You can actually find their results in the UN IPCC reports. I believe Wigley's is one of these.

They tell us something different than "several countries working together will have a large effect".

Those models all calculate that if EVERY Annex I and II nation under the UN FCCC had signed Kyoto, implemented it, met their targets, and extended those C02 reductions in perpetuity, the difference in temperature between doing nothing (business-as-usual scenario) and full bore global Kyoto with everyone actually meeting their targets would most likely be between .13-.15 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. I hope you didn't miss the decimal.

This would seem to correlate well with Chip's calculations. In other words, if ALL countries "in" has an effect of about .15 degrees C, then the effect of just the U.S. cap and trade policy should be less than that amount.

Either way, spending 2-4% of either US or global GDP for a difference which cannot be differentiated from natural climate variability is beyond stupid. It's economically (cost/benefit), environmentally (inconsequential to climate and diverting limited resources away from real risks to human health and the environment), and morally (regressive nature of cost domestically and keeping 2 billion in energy-induced poverty abroad) wrong.

Also, almost none of the EU signatories (with few exceptions) to Kyoto have met their emissions reductions targets, and most have seen their emissions actually rise.

Let's be smart, America.

David C| 5.11.09 @ 12:44AM

I got my figures from Knappenberg. Maybe you should read his report again. There's also a Part II in case you missed it. He states that if every country met the Waxman-Markey targets, there would be a net reduction of 2.37 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. He lists the 0.06 figure strictly for the year 2050, but the main concern is with warming in the second half of this century. The 0.20 degrees figure is for the US acting alone through 2100. This does not correlate with your figures, and that's because this is about Waxman-Markey, not Kyoto. Kyoto was just a general first step, not a real final solution.