Friday, March 2, 2007

Senator Inhofe Speaks at CPAC on Global Warming

Today, Senator Inhofe gave a PowerPoint presentation at CPAC on the issue of global warming. Now available on the the Inhofe-EPW press blog epw.senate.gov/minority/blog are Senator Inhofe's notes from his speech. The science section notes are a sampling of the new developments since January 2007 refuting the media engineered 'consensus' on man-made global warming. Also, video clips from Senator Inhofe's presentation are available or on YouTube.  Click here for here for pictures of the speech or to view slides from the presentation.

SENATOR INHOFE’S SELECTED NOTES FROM POWERPOINT PRESENATION AT CPAC & VIDEO CLIPS USED

Hot and Cold Media Spin: 100 Years of Climate Fears: COLD: (1895 until the 1930’s) HOT: (1920’s until the 1960’s) COLD: (1950’s until the 1970’s) HOT: (1980’s-Today)

Both Ways O’Brien: CNN American Morning anchor and liberal media darling Miles O’Brien made the claim as far back as 1996 that there was a "scientific consensus" on global warming, but just four years before in 1992 O’Brien report the possibility of a "new ice age" in the next 50 years.

SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007

MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen and former UN IPCC reviewer, called fears of man-made global warming ‘silly’ in January 2007 and equated concerns to ‘little kids’ attempting to "scare each other."

Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Meteorologist Mark Nolan said.

60 prominent scientists wrote the Canadian Prime Minister in 2006 saying that "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Meteorologist James Spann said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype" and he noted that "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon."

 
Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allen said in February 2007, "All of this (alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life."
 
Bernie Rayno, senior meteorologist with AccuWeather said in February 2007, "Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link global warming to greenhouse gases."
 
India’s Glaciologists and Geologists stepped forward to reject climate alarmism in February 2007. They included VK Raina, a leading glaciologist in India, RK Ganjoo, the director of the Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology and geologist MN Koul. "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times
 
Madhav Khandekar, a PhD meteorologist Canada’s rejected the UN IPCC global warming report. "I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic," said Khandekar in February 2007. "IPCC scientists did not thoroughly analyze why the Earth's surface temperature -- land and ocean combined -- has increased only modestly in the past 30 years."  
 
Paleoclimatologist Labels Climate Fears Oversimplified. Boston College’s professor of geology and geophysics Amy Frappier explained in February 2007, "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today." Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating." 
 
Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively exaggerated’ – Scientists L. Zhen-Shan, and S. Xian’s 2007 noted that "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study concluded that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change "looked at "multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes" and concluded "that "global climate will be cooling down in the next 20 years."

CLIMATE SCIENTISTS: IT’S THE SUN

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming," Shaviv said in January 2007. But Shaviv now points to growing peer reviewed evidence that the sun has been driving the temperature changes and said, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."

Climate scientist Henrik Svensmark released a report in February 2007 with researchers at the Danish National Space Centre which shows that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years," Svensmark said.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research, Pulkovo Observatory, in Russia said in January 2007. "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations," Abdussamatov said.

 
Climate Scientist Fred Singer & Environmental Economist Dennis Avery’s 2006 book: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" details the solar-climate link using studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings."
 
Niger Calder, former editor of New Scientist, also expressed his view last week that the UN rejects science it sees as "politically incorrect" and the UN denies that "climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis."

MARS HAS GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE ABSENCE OF SUVS 

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says," according to a February 2007 article in National Geographic. The article explained: "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars warming data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. ‘The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,’ Abdussamatov said.’"

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! WHAT BEGAN WITH THE UN IN 1990 IS NOW A HOLLYWOOD CRUSADE

THE UNITED NATIONS

French President Jacques Chirac: "Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance"

 
Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide"

THE UNITED NATIONS EXPOSED

The Kyoto Protocol: All Cost, No Gain: Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually, yet only reduce temperature by .06 Celsius. The 2005 rejected McCain-Lieberman proposal would have cost American households an additional $810 a year and more than 1 million jobs would have been lost. Electricity prices would have increased 20 percent.

Largest Tax Increase Ever: Cap and trade proposals (similar to the Kyoto Protocol) would mean the largest single tax increase in the history of America According to a Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates study, the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion dollars annually, ten times President Clinton’s 1993 record tax increase which cost $32 billion dollars.

MEDIA CITED CLIMATE ‘EXPERTS’ BLAME PRESIDENT BUSH FOR HURRICANES & WRONGLY PREDICT 2006 SEASON

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blamed Hurricane Katrina on the Bush Administration’s failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. "As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2."

Barbra Streisand predicted dire Hurricanes for 2006: "This summer's back to back superstorms are proof positive we have entered a new period of global warming emergency… We are in a global warming emergency state, and that these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense… There could be more droughts, dust bowls."

Liberal Environmental activist Ross Gelbspan: "The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming." August 30, 2005- Boston Globe 

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio in October 2005: "We are the biggest contributor to global warming in the entire world, and if we don't make a difference, we don't change our ways, a lot of things will go terribly wrong. It is one of the single most important issues facing the entire world."

GLOBAL WARMING = GREEN RELIGION?

Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell ridiculed the "semi-religious" belief in global warming and compared fears to "superstition." Cardinal Pell has also said, "In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions."

Dr. Calvin Beisner, Spokesman for Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "It would be morally unconscionable to force the world’s developing countries to delay their climb out of poverty by denying them, as would any serious cuts in CO2 emissions, the cheap, abundant energy available from carbon fuels."

JAMES LILEKS of Newhouse News Service, "If environmentalism is the new religion, the Oscar ceremony [for Gore] was the High Holy Mass."
 
Pennsylvania Priest Mocks 'Carbon Offsets' By Offering 'Moral Offsets' To Allow you to 'Sin with Confidence,'  "The size of your carbon footprint - and, according to global warming’s true believers, the blackness of your soul - is determined by how many and how much of these evil things you do. But fear not. If you’re rich enough, you can buy your environmental soul clean again by purchasing carbon offsets," Father J. Michael Venditti wrote in a March 2007 blog.

LIBERALS, MEDIA LATCH ON TO "LONE VOICE" TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER EVANGELICALS

Rev. Richard Cizik, a global warming alarmist, is frequently cited by the media to show a "split" in the evangelical movement. However, a closer look reveals Cizik is but a lone voice. A 2006 Vanity Fair Magazine article had Cizik posing for a picture where he was walking on water. Cizik shares the beliefs of liberals on issues like abortion and population control.

HERE COMES AL GORE

Katie Couric called Gore a 'Secular Saint' and praised his efforts to raise awareness and prompt action to combat global warming.

Oprah Winfrey has called former Vice President Al Gore the "Noah" of our time.

BUT DO SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH COURIC & WINFREY?

MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen, in June 2006: "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse."

Geologist Robert Giegengack believes Gore’s understanding of climate science is so poor that he told his undergrad students at University of Pennsylvania in February 2007: "Every single one of you knows more about [global warming] than Al Gore."

MOMENTUM SHIFTING TO SKEPTICS

ONCE BELIEVERS, NOW SKEPITCS

Claude Allegre: A top geophysicist and French Socialist converted from alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun.

 
David Bellamy: Famed UK environmental campaigner David Bellamy recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."
 
Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears.

POLITICAL LEADERS SPEAKING OUT

Czech President Vaclav Klaus told a Czech newspaper on February 8, 2007 that fears of catastrophic man-made global warming were a "myth" and critiqued the UN IPCC process, calling it a "political body." Klaus also said other government leaders would speak out, but "political correctness strangles their voice."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was recently reported to have once referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries.

Canadian Environmental Minister John Baird said meeting Kyoto's emissions reduction targets in Canada would require an economic collapse similar to Russia's post-Communist fall.

EVEN UN NOW BACKPEDALING FROM ALARMISM

Cow ‘Emissions’ More Damaging to Planet Than C02 From Cars (2006 UN Report, Food and Agricultural Organization)

Sea level rise estimates cut in half in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC Report)

UN Downgraded Man’s Climate Impact by 25% in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC Report)

ALARMISTS GETTING DESPERATE

Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel recently called for decertifying broadcast meteorologists who do not tow the line on global warming alarmism. Cullen is also the star of a new politically charged global warming documentary that, according to the film's website, accuses the U.S. government of "criminal neglect" and blames "right-wing think tanks" for helping to "defeat climate-friendly legislation."

Calls for ‘Nuremberg-Style’ trials for skeptics by some climate alarmists in 2006

 
Demonizing climate skeptics as ‘Flat Earth Society’ Members and much worse…
Alarmists threatening the job positions of State Climatologists in Oregon and Delaware who hold skeptical views on climate change

GET THE FACTS

Go To Senator Inhofe’s Committee website: www.epw.senate.gov/

Subscribe to Senator Inhofe YouTube Channel

Download Senate published 68 page color "Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism"

New Competitive Enterprise Institute book: "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" By Christopher Horner

Bypass Establishment Media – Seek out alternative news sources, blogs, talk radio, Internet.

INHOFE HONORED AS CONSERVATION LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR

On Thursday, Senator Inhofe received U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s ‘Legislator of the Year Award’ for his integral role in passing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act, which was approved by Congress and signed into law in 2006.  The Partners Program has been a successful voluntary partnership program that helps private landowners restore fish and wildlife habitats on their own lands. Sen. Inhofe’s bill secured statutory authority for the Partner’s Program for the first time and provided additional funding and added stability for the program.
 
“I am proud of the Partners Program’s success and I am honored to receive this award from U.S. Fish and Wildlife,” Inhofe said. “The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has already achieved proven results in habitat conservation throughout Oklahoma, while leveraging federal funds through voluntary private landowner participation. I look forward to continued success in our efforts to conserve and protect these important habitats.”
 
Since 1987, the Partners Program has been successful in helping private landowners restore fish and wildlife habitats on their lands. Through nearly 35,000 agreements with private landowners, the Partners Program has accomplished the restoration of 722,550 acres of wetlands, 1,573,700 acres of prairie and native grasslands, and 5,900 miles of riparian and in-stream habitat.

In Oklahoma, ninety-seven percent of land is held in private ownership. Since 1990, a total of 124,285 acres in Oklahoma have been restored through 700 individual Partners Program voluntary agreements with private landowners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service District Office in Tulsa currently reports that at least another 100 private landowners are waiting to enter into Partner's projects as soon as funds become available. Since 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided $3,511,121 to restore habitat in Oklahoma through the Partners Program, to which private landowners have contributed $12,638,272.

INHOFE WELCOMES OKLAHOMA REPRESENTATIVE ADKINS TO EPW HEARING

On Thursday, Senator Inhofe welcomed Oklahoma State Representative Dennis Adkins (R-Broken Arrow) to the EPW Committee hearing on “State, Regional, and Local Perspectives on Global Warming.” Senator Inhofe invited Rep. Adkins to testify on the impact of federal global warming legislation on Oklahoma and what action is taking place at the state level.
 
“As Democrats rush to pass carbon cap legislation resulting in the largest tax increase in American history, it is essential to hear from state and local officials about the significant cost back home,” Senator Inhofe said. “Therefore, I am particularly grateful to Oklahoma Representative Adkins, who as chair of the Oklahoma House Committee on Energy and Technology has significant knowledge of these issues,  for raising concerns in his testimony stressing that Oklahoma, as an energy state, would suffer significant job losses and higher energy prices if federal carbon cap legislation passed.”
 
Representative Adkins has served as the chairman of the since 2005, which has jurisdiction over all state legislation affecting the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and utility regulation. Further, Rep. Adkins is involved in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Energy Council. Both ALEC and the Energy Council are organizations comprised of state legislators from throughout the country.
 
HIGHLIGHTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE ADKINS TESTIMONY
 
 
“First and foremost, we would be concerned about the impact on Oklahomans. We would want to carefully weigh the proposed benefits of any action to the impact it will have on our citizens’ pocketbooks, our economy, as well as on the environment.
 
“Oklahoma is blessed to have an abundant supply of electricity at rates below the national average. Unfortunately, we are not as blessed when it comes to cool summers. Oklahoma can get hot in the summertime driving up power consumption as a result and that translates into high electric bills. I know because I hear from my constituents, and I am a ratepayer too.
 
As state and federal legislators, we all heard the public uproar when the cost of gasoline began climbing. A few winters ago, we heard loud and clear that citizens were not at all pleased with the increase in natural gas prices. Now, we are talking about taking steps that could drive energy prices even higher without a clearly articulated benefit.
 
“Generally speaking, measures such as carbon caps, cap and trade systems, and emission allowances would inevitably raise energy prices, raise costs of consumer products and services, reduce profits, impair productivity and may not achieve global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions reductions are imposed on developed countries, while developing countries such as India and China, which will ultimately surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions, are left out.
 
“In Oklahoma, for example, our utilities are becoming leaders in wind power. Without mandates, our state has over 500 megaWatts of wind power. Although I realize this falls behind larger states that have developed their infrastructure over a longer period of time, over the last three years, Oklahoma now has the fifth largest wind generation base in the country. In fact, as transmission costs climb to $1 million per mile, our largest problem is transmission of this energy from the western portion of the state throughout the rest state.
 
“Pending in the Oklahoma Legislature presently is a measure that will establish the Oklahoma Bio-fuels Center over the next four years. Oklahoma will invest $40 million in a consortium among the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the Noble Foundation to engage in research developing the bio-fuels sector focusing on cellulosic feedstock.
 
“At the same time, while the majority of the electricity capacity in Oklahoma is natural gas fired at roughly 58 percent, I know the utility sector is presently investing in building a new coal-fired plant in the central part of the state, and they are going above and beyond the standard technology. We are planning to build a cutting edge plant that will reduce greenhouse gases and other emissions.”
 
###

INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT: Hearing on State, Regional, and Local Perspectives on Global Warming

Thursday, March 01, 2007
 
Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman.
 
Today we are discussing State perspectives on climate change. As you know, the States are 50 laboratories of this country – each taking a unique policy pathway forward. In doing so, the experiments give federal policymakers examples of what policies work. Of course, the federal government also has examples of failed ideas it should avoid repeating at all costs – cap and trade ranks high among these.
 
Multiple approaches have been taken that purport to address climate change. Some states have clean coal R&D programs, others have tax credits for renewable energy or hybrid cars, and still others have renewable portfolio standards.  Most of these States have taken a pragmatic approach that recognizes the uniqueness of their circumstances.
 
A group of Northeastern States and California have enacted cap and trade programs to reduce emissions. Additionally, four Governors have joined Governor Schwarzenegger in pledging to come up with plans to reduce emissions. Today we will hear how ambitious and important they are, and what they plan to accomplish. But these programs haven’t accomplished anything. They are simply empty promises that won’t be kept and denials about costs that will surely be paid.
 
California is a good example of an empty promise – it passed a law bringing emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. This baseline was not chosen arbitrarily, but to support the Kyoto Protocol, which also uses a 1990 baseline. Since Kyoto is the only cap and trade program that is under way, it’s worth asking – how well is that program working?
 
Of the 15 original EU countries, only two will meet their targets – Sweden and Britain, and Britain only because it eliminated its coal industry in the early 90s. And like most signatories, Canada and Japan won’t meet their targets either. The simple fact is that the U.S. has spent more federal dollars on basic science, as well as research and development, and done more to reduce our emissions rate than Europe since 2000. How did we do that? – By rejecting Kyoto’s cap and trade approach.
 
The simple fact is jobs are fleeing the EU because of its experiment into cap and trade.  And China – which will become the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2009 – and India and other developing nations will never sign on. As Lu Xuedu, Deputy Director General of China’s Office of Global Environmental Affairs, said in October: “You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions.”
 
That is why the California and RGGI programs will fail. Although each of these regions has yet to pay the costs, there will be costs. Jobs will flee these states, costs will go up and purchasing power will decline.
 
In the RGGI states, for instance, Charles River Associates estimated a similar proposal would cost the region 18,000 jobs in 2010. Electricity prices would rise 9 percent, hitting the elderly and poor the hardest, with the poor having to shoulder an increased burden more than double that of the rich due to the costs of energy. Similarly, purchasing power would decline $270 per family in 2010 and worsen annually.
 
California will fare as badly. While the program they plan to implement the law is so uncertain economic modeling is difficult, the targets and timing suggest that the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Kyoto Protocol study is useful. That study found California would see its economy decline by about 1% and 278,000 jobs.
 
Let’s be honest about what these programs and their companion proposals here in Congress really are – they are the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. In fact, they are worse than taxes because they will cost more and be less effective. And the only reason the alarmists have not proposed an outright tax yet is they know it will be more difficult to reward the climate profiteers supporting them in their efforts.
 
In closing, I will simply say that I find it ironic that the liberals are so openly crafting programs to directly benefit powerful corporations and interest groups at the expense of the poor, elderly and working class.
 
Thank you.
 
###

 

EPW FACT OF THE DAY: DuPont's Actions Compared To Enron

DuPont claims it joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to support global warming cap-and-trade legislation out of concern for the Earth’s climate.

Fact: DuPont’s claims of environmental altruism have been questioned. According to the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2007, "DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a [mandatory C02] cap." The Wall Street Journal called cap-and-trade seeking corporations a "pack of climate profiteers." In addition, potential DuPont carbon credits coulud have an estimated market value of roughly $470 million per year.

CEI president Fred Smith explained that DuPont stands to benefit under even the most modest cap-and-trade proposals. "DuPont would realize more than a 900 percent return on investment," Smith said during a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) hearing on February 13, 2007.

Senator Kit Bond noted the similarities between corporations clamoring for a cap-and-trade system and the failed energy giant Enron.

"This is not the first time that industry has worked alongside environmentalists. Indeed, this is not even the first time that some in industry have thrown their support toward carbon caps. Indeed, we need only think back to Clinton administration meetings with Enron’s Ken Lay over Kyoto treaty negotiations," Senator Bond said during the February 13, 2007 hearing.

"This Washington Post article Enron Also Courted Democrats: Chairman Pushed Firm’s Agenda With Clinton White House chronicled how, [i]n a White House meeting in 1997...Lay urged President Clinton and Vice President Gore to back a market-based approach to the problem of global warming - a strategy that a later Enron memo makes clear would be "good for Enron stock,"’" Senator Bond explained.

"This text bubble details why Enron officials later expressed elation at the binding carbon caps in the Kyoto protocol. According to the Washington Post: ‘an internal [Enron] memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States,"’" Senator Bond added.

EPW FACT OF THE DAY: PG&E's Actions Compared to Enron

PG&E Corporation claims it joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to support global warming cap-and-trade legislation out of concern for the Earth’s climate.

Fact: PG&E Corporation’s claims of environmental altruism have been questioned. According to the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2007, PG&E is one of four "utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors." The Wall Street Journal called cap-and-trade seeking corporations a "pack of climate profiteers."

PG&E Corporation’s claims of environmental altruism have been questioned. According to theJanuary 26, 2007, PG&E is one of four "utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors." The Wall Street Journal called cap-and-trade seeking corporations a "pack of climate profiteers."

CEI president Fred Smith explained that PG&E stands to benefit under cap-and-trade proposals. "…if Congress enacts carbon caps on power plant emissions, PG&E will gain an instant competitive advantage over power producers that rely more on coal and less on nuclear, hydro, natural gas, or wind. PG&E’s national market share will grow not because it lowers its prices, but because Congress raised its competitors’ prices," Smith said during a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) hearing on February 13, 2007.

Senator Kit Bond noted the similarities between corporations clamoring for a cap-and-trade system and the failed energy giant Enron.

"This is not the first time that industry has worked alongside environmentalists. Indeed, this is not even the first time that some in industry have thrown their support toward carbon caps. Indeed, we need only think back to Clinton administration meetings with Enron’s Ken Lay over Kyoto treaty negotiations," Senator Bond said during the February 13, 2007 hearing.

"This Washington Post article ‘Enron Also Courted Democrats: Chairman Pushed Firm’s Agenda With Clinton White House’ chronicled how, ‘[i]n a White House meeting in 1997...Lay urged President Clinton and Vice President Gore to back a market-based approach to the problem of global warming - a strategy that a later Enron memo makes clear would be "good for Enron stock,"’" Senator Bond explained.

"This text bubble details why Enron officials later expressed elation at the binding carbon caps in the Kyoto protocol. According to the Washington Post: ‘an internal [Enron] memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States,"’" Senator Bond added.

From the Blog: President Bush's Crawford TX Home is Model of Environmentally Friendly Living

Former Vice President Al Gore has been criticized for his rather large electric bills ($30,000 a year) at his home in Tennessee. (Link) What you might not have heard about is how environmentally friendly President George Bush's home is in Crawford Texas. Below is a partial reprint from the Chicago Tribune from April 29, 2001.

Chicago Tribune
Bush loves ecology --at home
April 29, 2001

By Rob Sullivan. Rob Sullivan is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford

[EPW Note: The President’s House in Crawford was designed to be eco-friendly.]

According to David Heymann, the house's architect and associate dean of the University of Texas architecture department, Heymann designed the house so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place."

In a USA Today interview, Heymann said, "There's a great grove of oak trees to the west that protects it from the late afternoon sun. Then there is a view out to the north looking at hills, and to the east out over a lake, and the view to the south . . . out to beautiful hills."

[EPW Note: I wonder if the news media will report on the President’s green way of life.]