in the 21st century
|
| Advancing the principles of
freedom in the 21st century |
| III. Air and Water Issues |  |
As most people now know, the greenhouse effect is a phenomenon by which incoming solar radiation passes through our atmosphere, is absorbed by the earth, and then re-emitted as heat which is trapped by what are called "greenhouse gases." In fact, the survival of all life depends on this phenomenon. Without it, the earth would be far too cold to support life.
 |
|
Figure 1 The amount of water vapor in the air constitutes 97% of all primary greenhouse gases. |
Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and several very minor gases such as nitrous oxide (N2O), various fluorinated compounds like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), perfluorocarbon (PFC), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and others. Of the total, nearly 97 percent is water vapor and only 1.9 percent is carbon dioxide (CO2).1 Experts generally acknowledge that there has been increasing concentrations of CO2 during the industrial age, and especially since World War II. But one important question is, when CO2 makes up only 1.6 percent of the greenhouse gases, just how important can it be compared to water vapor which makes up 97 percent of the total primary gases and is constantly fluctuating?
Most scientists recognize that we have had increasing temperatures for the past 150 years or more. Yet, in spite of U.N. and EPA proclamations to the contrary, there is no evidence supporting any of the tragic consequences that are supposed to accompany global warming, such as increased number and strength of hurricanes, super hot summers, and Antarctic icecap melting. For instance, the U.S. National Hurricane Center states that "during the forty year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of land-falling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply!"2 The same is true of hurricane intensity. As can be seen from Figure 2, hurricane frequency and intensity in the Atlantic Ocean follow cycles, some of them longer than others. After nearly 50 years of declining frequency and intensity, an increase is long overdue. The downward trend may be reversing with the 2005 hurricane season. Even with the huge hurricanes of Katrina and Rita, however, Figure 2 shows that 2005 still has a long way to go to even get to the average of 5-6 major hurricanes in a season. Several years will be needed to determine if 2005 is an aberrant or shows a true trend back to what was experienced in the 1940s and 1950s. The same is true of hurricane intensity.3
 |
|
Figure 2 The number and intensity of
hurricanes striking the United States has declined from a peak in the
1930s-1950s through 2004. Not shown on this graph is an upward trend
of hurricanes since 1995 when all North Atlantic hurricanes are
considered.
|
Many activists, past and present politicians, and media personalities in the U.S. have linked Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to global warming. Asked if Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming, Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, replied "I am very confident that it's not.... if we go back from 1970 through the middle '90s, that 25 year period - even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down."4 Continuing his answer, Dr. Gray blasted those scientists who try to link the frequency and intensity of hurricanes to global warming. "They would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there's a lot of money to be made on this," he warns. "If you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded."
The number of hurricanes (cyclones) and their intensity is similar world wide as well. Dr. Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, states that "In other parts of the world...such as in the Western and Eastern Pacific, and in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, tropical cyclone frequency has declined since the early 1990s. Such variable behavior in the trends of storm frequency from around the world led the researchers to conclude that:
In summary, careful analysis of global hurricane data shows that, against a background of increasing SST (Sea Surface Temperature), no global trend has yet emerged in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes. Only one region, the North Atlantic, shows a statistically significant increase, which commenced in 1995. However, a simple attribution of the increase in numbers of storms to a warming SST environment is not supported, because of the lack of a comparable correlation in other ocean basins where SST is also increasing."5
Michaels and Robert Balling also show that there is no warming trend in the U.S. summer temperatures over the last 80 years.6 Balling is director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. Rather than warming as previously thought, portions of Antarctica have been dramatically cooling by 1.2°F per decade for the past 20 years7 and there exits "strong evidence of ice-sheet growth."8 Some scientists also argue that the amount of water the Antarctic ice-sheet holds should increase over the course of the next 100 years, producing a sea level drop of 3.54 inches.9 Certainly, there are those that disagree with these assertions. The key point is that argument whether the Antarctic ice-sheet will melt or grow continues to be debated within the scientific community.
Obviously, peer-reviewed science shows that global warming is not having the predicted affects. Hurricanes and other storms are not becoming more numerous or violent, summers are not becoming hotter, and the Antarctic ice cap may not be melting, thereby flooding coastal cities and Pacific Islands. The science on the issue of climate change is not settled as many politicians and activists would have people believe. The question then becomes, if there is so much uncertainty within the scientific community, why is the United Nations, some politicians and activists so set on creating costly policy to solve a problem that may not exist?
All-in-all, global climate is not showing signs of impending catastrophe. Further, even if man is causing slight warming, NASA reports that "the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions has slowed since its peak in 1980." Although the authors cite the control of CFCs as explaining much of the reduction, the good news is that; "The climate warming projected by the Goddard Institute study is about half as large as typical increases cited by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."10 Even so, a large number of scientists do not believe there is even sufficient evidence to show that what little warming is occurring is caused by man-caused increases in CO2. Seventeen thousand scientists in the United States have signed a petition stating:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.11
Of the seventeen thousand that have signed the petition, over two-thirds have advanced degrees. They include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
 |
|
Figure 3 Ground-based (above and in orange)
and corrected satellite (below and in blue) measured global
temperatures. Straight lines are trend lines for each data set.
Source: Ground data, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
|
While the disagreement comes from hundreds of different and often-conflicting research studies, the controversy focused on two sets of data until 2005; ground-based measured temperatures and satellite measured temperatures. The ground-based data include thousands of temperature sources recorded in meteorological stations around the world - mostly at airports. The ground-based data show a somewhat larger increase in global temperatures than the satellite data. The satellite data originate from geostationary satellites that have been in orbit since 1979 and show a slightly lower warming trend than the ground based data. (See Figure 3).
Until August of 2005, the satellite data showed very little warming; 0.09°C/decade for the satellite data compared to 0.20oC/decade for the ground based measurements. However, Drs. C.A. Mears and F.J. Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems found a mathematical error in the satellite data due to decaying orbits of the satellites.12 After correction, Mears and Wentz determined the satellite data shows a 0.19°C/decade - almost exactly what the ground-based measurements showed. The media and global warming proponents hailed this as proof there is indeed global warming. However, the team of scientists led by Dr. Roy Spencer, of the National Space Science & Technology Center, who are responsible for the satellite data applied drift corrections, determined a 0.12°C/decade increase (shown in Figure 3). This is greater than the 0.09°C previously determined,13 but far less than the 0.19°C/decade increase determined by Mears and Wentz.
Why the discrepancy? Dr. Spencer believes it to be due to the way in which successive satellites in the long satellite time series are intercalibrated. Spencer goes on to say, "Nevertheless, all measurements systems have errors (especially for climate trends), and researchers differ in their views of what kinds of errors exist, and how they should be corrected."14 It will take time for other scientists to scrutinize the data before solid conclusions can be made - if ever.
Ground-based temperature measurements, for instance, are subject to a host of errors, most of which are of a random nature that would be expected to cancel out in a large data pool. All except one. It's called the "heat island effect." Most meteorological stations were constructed at airports when they were in the country, outside the city they served. Since then the cities have grown up around the measuring stations. What were once green fields and forests surrounding the measuring station are now paved roads, black asphalt roofs, furnaces, air conditioners and automobiles. Because of this, ambient temperatures can increase by several degrees creating a large error in the long-term temperature trend line. When United States data is adjusted for this error using best-guess estimates, the ground and satellite data nearly merge; with the ground data showing only a slightly higher warming trend than the satellite data.15
The other primary "proof" of man-caused global warming comes from a number of climate change models. Even though these models are very complex and run on super computers, they still cannot accurately reflect past climate change. Consequently, a cloud of skepticism surrounds their future scenarios. Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal." Singer continues:
Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend - and it isn't. Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values - and they clearly don't ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling. Models still cannot model clouds. The latest modeling exercise (Stainforth et al. Nature 27 Jan., 2005)16 obtained a warming (for a doubling of CO2) ranging from 1.9C to 11.5C (take your pick!) when they varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds. Their result confirms my point that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated.17
If these doubts are not bad enough, the most recent five-year report, the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) picked the worst possible scenarios to represent "possible" future conditions from global warming. Robert Watson, head of the IPCC, paints a very bleak picture of the future by predicting water shortages, disease, and agricultural damage. As reported by the January 23, 2001, Washington Post, Watson claimed that "Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years" - the most rapid change in 10 millennia and more than 60 percent higher than the same group predicted less than six years ago.18 (Italics added)
Dr. John Christy, one of the world's leading climatology experts and head author of the IPCC summary report, strongly disagrees. In response to the media's clamor over the reports and Watson's dramatically pessimistic assertions, Christy contended, "the world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints. There were 245 different results in that report, and this was the worst-case scenario," he says. "It's the one that's not going to happen. It was the extreme case of all the different things that can make the world warm."19 (Italics added) Christy is a professor of Atmospheric Science and is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama.
Watson's politicized summary also directly contradicts the actual scientific report to the IPPC. The report's conclusions state, "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible."20 (Italics added) In other words, in writing the political summary, Robert Watson overrode actual scientific report as well as protests of the report's lead author to make the IPPC political summary as negative as possible.
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen goes so far as to describe the UN-IPCC report as "absurd." In a recent interview, Dr. Lindzen agreed with Dr. Christy, claiming the latest report of the UN-IPCC, "was very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen" in a worse-case scenario prepared by a "peculiar group" with "no technical competence."21 Yet the press reports it as certainty. "You should approach climate models with a degree of awe and a sense of humor," claimed Christy. "They are incredible accomplishments in code-writing, but they are not the real world." Christy went on to point out that: "evidence shows we are living in a climate of natural variability. Variations of climate have always occurred, even when humans could not have had an impact!" Because "even with all our cars, factories, and cities, man's impact on the powerful energy force we call the weather is too small to measure."
The deliberate distortion of science by IPCC leadership led one of the world's leading scientists on Atlantic tropical cyclones (hurricanes) to resign his position as a participant in the IPCC in January 2005. In doing so Chris Landsea used the words "unsupported agenda," "motivated by preconceived agendas," "so far outside current scientific understanding," "misrepresentation of climate science" "subverted and compromised" science, and "unfounded pronouncements," in describing how the lead author for the IPCC chapter on warming affects on cyclones (AR4), Dr. Kevin Trenberth, proclaimed to the media that there is a link between global warming and tropical cyclones without any scientific basis for doing so.22
On the other hand, other narrowly focused research does tend to support the man-caused global warming theory. However, more questions accompany these studies than they solve, or suffer from the problem that they may represent isolated examples. In summary, while few people question that there is global warming; there remains sharp debate in the scientific community whether the warming is man-caused or even catastrophic. What is not in doubt, however, is the demonstrated fact that there is a willingness on the part of the U.N. and other international players to grossly distort the data of climate change. By doing so they create a conclusion that may add political support to measures designed to limit fossil fuel use, but disingenuously distorts the facts surrounding the issue of climate change.
Even if there is man-caused global warming, it is widely acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol is not designed to stop it, let alone reverse it. In fact, even the United Nations recognizes that over the next 50 years (at a cost of trillions of dollars) the treaty would only reduce warming by 0.015°C at best. Why? Because only developed nations would be bound by the treaty, and almost all the future increases in CO2 emissions are expected to take place in the developing nations. To accomplish even the Treaty's stated reduction in temperature, it would require the United States to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent. Since there is nearly a one to one ratio between emissions and energy consumption, the U.S. would be forced to reduce its energy consumption by 30 percent by 2012. Such a strategy would have a devastatingly negative effect on the U.S. economy.
The proposed alternative is to "buy" pollution credits from developing nations to keep U.S. industry at home while developing nations continued to escalate their own CO2 emissions. Since buying pollution credits will do nothing to stop or reverse warming, the plan is nothing more than a massive global income redistribution plan. In summary then, there is tremendous uncertainty whether man-caused global warming is even occurring, or if CO2 is even directly involved in warming. In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth warmed well before there was any increase in the air's CO2 content.23 Even if CO2 is responsible, the Kyoto Protocol would do almost nothing to stop it, and merely represents the greatest global income redistribution plan ever conceived by the mind of man.
| Table 1. Mean percentage yield increases produced by a 300 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration for all crops for which experimental data could be found. | |||
| Crop | % Increase |
Crop | % Increase |
| C3 Cereals | Roots and Tubers | ||
| Barley | 66 | Carrots | 60 |
| Rapeseed | 62 | Cassava | 87 |
| Rice | 37 | Onions | 28 |
| Sunflower Seed | 36 | Potatoes | 35 |
| Wheat | 48 | Sugar Beets | 33 |
| Average | 48 | Sweet Potatoes | 46 |
| Average | 48.2 | ||
| C4 Cereals | |||
| Maize | 22 | Cabbages | 27 |
| Sorghum | 18 | Cauliflower | 34 |
| Average | 20.0 | Green Chilies & Peppers | 25 |
| Fruits & Melons | Cucumbers & Gherkins | 39 | |
| Other Fresh Fruit | 30 | Eggplants | 54 |
| Pumpkins, Squash | 18 | Lettuce | 40 |
| Average | 24.0 | Tomatoes | 20 |
| Legumes | Other Vegetables | 53 | |
| Beans | 32 | Average | 36.5 |
| Broad Beans | 39 | Woody Plants | |
| Cow Peas | 86 | Average | 51.0 |
| Okra | 32 | ||
| Peas | 31 | ||
| Soybeans | 46 | ||
| Average | 44.3 | ||
| Source: Craig and Keith
Idso. "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," Technology 7S:41,
2000.
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/pdf/idso.pdf |
|||
There is another side of the CO2 emissions issue that is almost never discussed, yet could hold the answer to meeting food production needs until population levels stabilize. Carbon dioxide is a limiting factor to plant growth throughout the world. The addition of this gas to any environment causes plants to grow faster and more robust, increasing both their productivity and growth. Scientists have has found that crop production is increased by about 50 percent with a doubling of CO2 (which is the assumption that climate change is based upon). More importantly, CO2 enhancement dramatically improves crop tolerance to stress such as droughts and pollution, permitting much greater crop production compared to normal levels of CO2. If global CO2 does increase, the crops will grow even faster and healthier.24
The CO2 fertilization effect is substantial. The Center has estimated that the 100 ppm increase of CO2 in the past 150 years due to the industrial revolution has allowed a 77 percent increase in the yield of wheat and a 70 percent increase in other C3 cereals. The increase is 28 percent for C4 cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 61 percent for roots and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.25 And, there does not appear to be a limit to the fertilization effect. Applications of up to 100 times (35,000 ppm) of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere continued to enhance photosynthesis in herb and trees in Venezuela. Plants in these super enriched CO2 environments continued to grow better, even in drought and in the presence of toxic hydrocarbons and sulfur gasses.26
This has a potentially tremendous impact on future food production. For instance, Mayeux, et al. determined that the growth response of the wheat was a linear function of atmospheric CO2.27 Based on the linear regression equations Mayeux's team developed for grain yield in these situations, the 100-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration experienced over the past century and a half should have increased the mean grain yield of the two wheat cultivars by about 72% under well-watered conditions and 48% under water-stressed conditions, for a mean yield increase on the order of 60% under the full range of moisture conditions likely to have existed throughout the entire real world.
The improved growth with elevated CO2 levels is so pronounced that Drs. Craig and Keith Idso, state,
"In summation, the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content should continue to enhance plant growth and development, particularly in the face of resource limitations and environmental stresses that tend to do just the opposite. In a nutshell, when it's needed most, elevated CO2 helps the most."28
Best of all, it is FREE to the developing nations.
The Idsos are two of the world's recognized leaders on carbon dioxide research. They calculate that over the next half-century, the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will boost world agricultural output by about half as much as will the expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise. Taken together, these two effects "should augment food production just enough to supply the dietary requirements of the projected human population of the world in the year 2050."29
Indeed, there is hard evidence this is really happening. NASA reported that during the period 1980-2000 satellite data clearly showed a marked greening of parts of the northern hemisphere which they attribute to CO2 fertilization and warming.30 So important is this greening that the Idso's strongly warn,
"if proposed regulations restricting anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which are designed to remedy the potential climate problem) are enacted, they will exacerbate the future food problem by reducing the CO2-induced stimulation of crop productivity needed to supply future world food requirements not provided by expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise."31
The benefits of CO2 fertilization to both humanity and the environment are so strong; while the potential threat of CO2 induced global warming is so tenuous, that the continued all-out attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is totally unwarranted.
A Cautious Policy Approach is Warranted
President Bush's Climate Action Report released on June 1, 2002 reflects a proper caution about the global warming issue. Although the report incorrectly states that there is man-caused global warming, the United States correctly "seeks an environmentally sound approach that will not harm the U.S. economy, which remains a critically important engine of global prosperity. We believe that economic development is key to protecting the global environment."32
The report states the obvious truth: "no one will forgo meeting basic family needs to protect the global commons." Environmental protection and sustainability has to be linked to continued development and increasing prosperity to be successful. The report lays out a plan to expand "nuclear power generation; improved energy efficiency for vehicles, buildings, appliances, and industry; development of hydrogen fuels and renewable technologies; increased access to federal lands and expedited licensing practices; and expanded use of cleaner fuels, including initiatives for coal and natural gas."33
Critics argue that the science pointing to man-caused global warming is so weak that no policy is needed. At least the U.S. plan appears to be applying the free market approach - not the heavy hand of regulation that stifles creativity and problem solving. Incentives will be used to promote alternative fuels and production efficiencies. And, the go-slow-to-be-sure policy of the U.S. is prudent when CO2 has the potential for doing so much good for mankind.
The go-slow approach has yielded significant progress. Although considerable evidence exists that there is little or no man-caused global warming, the Bush administration is taking concrete steps on climate change issues. Bush's Methane to Markets (M2M) initiative is the first international anti-climate change agreement. Bush's July 2004 M2M agreement requires the United States, United Kingdom, India, Ukraine, Mexico, and Italy to reduce their methane emissions by about 1 percent of all greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activity. This doesn't sound like much, but because methane is about 20-30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. According to Environmental News, this is the equivalent of:
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the M2M agreement will make some real tangible progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a very low cost. M2M is projected to cost the U.S. only $53 million over five years rather than the billions of dollars the Kyoto Protocol is forecast to cost.35
Other good signs have also emerged in 2005. The G-8 meeting that was held during the first week of July, 2005 seemed to indicate a stunning reversal in the geopolitics of global warming. The joint statement issued at the conclusion of the G-8 meeting stated, "uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate change." Although the statement diplomatically reaffirmed the goals of the UNFCCC and the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it did so with restrained moderation. The G-8 leaders also pledged "to put ourselves on a path to slow and...stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases," but only "as the science justifies."36 This is in sharp contrast to the heretofore proclamations of the immediate need to implement the Kyoto Protocol regardless of cost.
Even more striking is the failure of the G-8 joint statement to even mention any of the scientifically weak predictions of drought, storm frequency, famine, and other "catastrophes" consistently predicted by global warming alarmists. Instead, the statement emphasized the promotion of "innovation, energy efficiency, conservation; improve policy, regulatory and financing frameworks; and accelerate deployment of cleaner technologies, particularly lower-emitting technologies." Another shift from the Kyoto Protocol by the G-8 is the need to stress adaptation technology. "Adaptation to the effects of climate change due to both natural and human factors is a high priority for all nations," the statement read.37
Finally, the G-8 acknowledged that no climate policy would be successful if it does not include the rapidly growing nations of China and India. These nations are second and third in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions today and will soon take over as the number one emitters of greenhouse gases. Efforts are already underway to include China, India and other nations in a more coherent climate change effort. M2M already includes India and more nations will likely join the agreement.
The magnitude of the geopolitical shift away from Kyoto did not come, however, until July 26, 2005 when the United States was leading a six nation partnership of Pacific states in a new agreement on global warming. The United States, Australia, China, India, South Korea and Japan comprise the group. Called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the six-nation plan emphasizes the need for increased access to affordable and reliable energy in the developing world, and flexibility in reaching the group's environmental goals. The "vision statement" for the new initiative could be taken from the G-8 Action Plan.
The Partnership's vision is to cooperate and share "existing and emerging cost-effective, cleaner technologies and practices." These technologies include, but not limited to:
"energy efficiency, clean coal, integrated gasification combined cycle, liquefied natural gas, carbon capture and storage, combined heat and power, methane capture and use, civilian nuclear power, geothermal, rural/village energy systems, advanced transportation, building and home construction and operation, bioenergy, agriculture and forestry, hydropower, wind power, solar power, and other renewables."38
The emphasis appears to be on "cost-effective" solutions. M2M, of course, fits perfectly within this vision. Although the statement diplomatically states that the Partnership efforts runs in "parallel" with Kyoto, in fact it is a radical departure from Kyoto.
Like global warming, much uncertainty burdens the ozone depletion theory. According to proponents of the theory, Freon for refrigeration and Halon for fire extinguishers are the primary chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) causing the oxidation of ozone in the stratosphere. However, both are heavier than air - which begs the question of how they get into the stratosphere to do their damage, while naturally occurring oxidizing chlorine compound fluorine compounds do not.
 |
|
Figure 4 Dramatization of ozone layer during the southern hemispheric winter. Actual ozone thickness is only a few centimeters. Ozone is thickest at the South Pole in the coldest part of the late winter and naturally thins closer to the equator. The dashed line represents the relative thinning that is caused by CFCs in late winter. The thickness relationship reverses itself during the North Pole winter. |
Then there is also the issue of Mr. Erbus, an Antarctic volcano which has been emitting chlorine and fluorine gases since 1972. Some of these gases make it into the very low polar stratosphere where the ozone thinning occurs every late winter at the South Pole. Another problem is that only minor thinning of the ozone layer has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the CFC's are made and used, while most of the thinning occurs at the South Pole. Various explanations have attempted to provide reasons for these anomalies, but natural ozone thinning caused by the continuous eruption of Mt. Erbus since 1972 still provides the most logical explanation.
Even if manmade CFCs are causing ozone to thin at the South Pole, a number of scientists have raised the question, "so-what?" The most the ozone layer is predicted to thin is less than 10 percent, but the natural annual variation between the hemispheric summer and winter is 50 percent!39 This natural variation is caused by temperature and sunlight.
The colder the temperature and the less sunlight there is, the thicker the ozone layer. Because extreme cold and sunlight cause ozone thickening, the ozone layer is naturally much thicker during the polar winter than the polar summer. It is also much thicker at the poles than the equator - by 130 percent. This works out to be a variation of 5000 percent in actual UV radiation between the poles and the equator.40 In fact, because the poles have much more ozone than the equator, a New York family vacationing in Florida during March would have 7% less ozone protecting them, thereby exposing them to 270 percent more damaging UV-B radiation, than if they had stayed in New York!41 Of course, it is unlikely they would be sunbathing in New York in March. How much further south would one have to move to be equivalent to the increased UV-B resulting from current ozone thinning? About 200 km (124 miles) closer to the equator - "a move smaller than that from Manchester to London, Chicago to Indianapolis, Albany to New York, Lyons to Marseilles, Trento to Florence, Stuttgart to Dusseldorf or Christchurch to Wellington."42
Why do many scientists ignore contradictory evidence when the stakes are so high? Some, no doubt, have honest disagreements respecting the evidence. Others, perhaps, have other motives. Melvyn Shapiro, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA offered this sobering comment:
...This is about money. If there were no dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played in a very different way. It would be played on intellect and integrity. When you say that the ozone threat is a scam, you're not only attacking people's scientific integrity, you're going after their pocketbook, as well. It's money, purely money.43
In summary, the Montreal Protocol that bans Freon and other important CFCs from the market has a questionable scientific basis, and denies mankind of one of the safest, most important chemicals used for refrigeration, fire extinguishers and many other products.
Of all the pollution affecting human health, indoor and outdoor air pollution is by far the most important. According to the EPA, 86-96 percent of all social benefits come from the regulation of air pollution.44 Air pollution has always been a problem in cities because of waste. In the 1660s, London was a foul place in which to live. In 1661 John Evelyn lamented, "most Londoners breathe nothing but an impure and thick mist, accompanied by a fuliginous and filthy vapour, corrupting the lungs." Stench from human waste was added to this foul vapor. Lawrence Stone tells us that:
The city ditches, now often filled with stagnant water, were commonly used as latrines; butchers killed animals in their shops and threw the offal of the carcasses into the streets; dead animals were left to decay and fester where they lay;...45 [Human excrement were] cast into the streets at night time when the inhabitants shut up their houses. [Visitors] are forced to stop their noses to avoid the ill smell occasioned by it.46
The stench from burning coal was so bad that in 1257 the Queen of England cut short a visit to Nottingham because the smell of smoke was so intolerable she feared for her life. Lead poisoning from smelting was also very serious around smelting facilities. People got sick and mysteriously died. As late as 1952, 4,000 Londoners died in seven days because of severe smog.47 All this pollution represents a classic illustration of the Tragedy of the Commons. No one owned the streets or air, so the easiest way to get rid of waste was to throw it out on the common areas.
The good news is that air pollution plummeted during the last half of the twentieth century and is now lower than before the industrial revolution. Of the many sources of air pollution, smoke and soot particles are found in highest concentrations, followed by sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), lead, nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3), and carbon monoxide (CO).48 These are the only air pollutants for which the U.S. EPA has established National Air Quality Standards.49 According to the National Air Quality and Emissions Trends, 2003 report by the EPA:
National air quality levels measured at thousands of monitoring stations across the country have shown improvements over the past 20 years for all six principal pollutants Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time, U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent.50
Since 1970, the United States has reduced emissions of lead by 98 percent, particulate matter (PM10) by 34 percent, sulfur dioxide by 52 percent, volatile organic compounds by 51 percent, carbon monoxide by 48 percent and various nitrogen oxides by 17 percent. Although tremendous progress has been made over the past thirty years, the EPA report warns, "about 160 million tons of pollution are emitted into the air each year in the United States. Approximately 146 million people live in areas where monitored air in 2002 was unhealthy at times because of high levels of at least one of the six principal air pollutants."51 Although this sounds bad, just what defines an area to be "unhealthy?"
Taking just one example from hundreds, an EPA-funded study from 1982 to 1989 of some 550,000 adults in 151 metropolitan areas found a 17 percent increase in mortality among inhabitants of the most polluted areas in the country. The EPA assumed that these increased deaths were caused by particulates and ozone. It arbitrarily proposed new clean air national standards in 1996 by dropping the maximum particle size from 10 to 2.5µm (micrometer) and maximum ground level ozone levels from 0.12 to 0.08 parts per million.
The EPA's standards represent a constantly changing goal that simply cannot be justified. First, although the most polluted communities in a 1995 EPA-funded research project may have had a 17 percent higher death rate than the least polluted areas,52 this coincidence does not, by itself, demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between air-particulate pollution and death rates. Second, researchers did not measure how much air pollution exposure even one study subject received. Instead, they made assumptions, or guessed, how much pollution these individuals might have encountered. Third, study subjects undoubtedly differ in many behavioral, occupational, environmental and genetic factors - factors that were inadequately considered by the epidemiologists. For example, the researchers did not look at variances in the subjects' diet, income, health history, exercise habits, stress level or migration characteristics. Any one of these factors, or a combination thereof, could explain the difference in death rates.53
The announcement for the new standards stunned cities, counties and even research scientists. The natural summer background levels of ozone in the eastern third of the United States is typically about .075 to .08 parts per million from natural sources. This ozone is formed from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in normal transpiration of the hardwood forests of the east. It creates the haze that is typical of eastern forests in the summer and gave the Southern Appalachian Mountain Range the name, the Smoky Mountains. This policy means many eastern cities will never be able to achieve the new standards because the forest is often out of compliance. Likewise, the natural calcium loaded dust from the dry western states is often below 10µm in size, putting many Western cities at risk of being unable to comply because nature exceeds the new EPA standards.
Just as most counties in the United States were coming into attainment with the old standards, the new standards threw hundreds of counties and most large cities out of attainment - but provided new justification for the existence of the Air Projects and Programs Division of the EPA. Since most emissions in the 2.5 to 10µm range are from combustion products, the new standards would permit the EPA to directly regulate automobiles, lawnmowers and barbeques. The EPA's cost/benefit analysis showed that the program would save $100-120 billion in medical costs and some 15,000-20,000 lives annually, and would only cost American cites $6-$10 billion. Few accepted these numbers, however. Independent analysis showed it would at best only save 840 lives54 and cost at least $60 billion (up to $120 billion).55 That's $610-$1,200 per American family.
EPA's own panel of scientific experts, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) stressed the need for more research to fill the "obvious gaps in our knowledge," because there are "... many unanswered questions and uncertainties" in the search for a possible link between fine particles and health effects. EPA has acknowledged this gap by requesting $27 million for research into the effects of PM. But this research was not even scheduled to begin until after the rules become law, and the results not known until well into the 21st Century.56
The EPA's argument was so weak; in fact, that a U.S. Court of Appeals panel in Washington, D.C. decided unanimously in May, 1999 that EPA had used science selectively. The panel also ruled 2-to-1 that EPA overstepped its constitutional authority by setting (extremely tight) standards on urban ozone and fine particulates in an arbitrary way. However, when the panel's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by the EPA, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals on February 28, 2001 saying the Clean Air Act "instructs the EPA to set primary ambient air quality standards 'the attainment and maintenance of which... are requisite to protect the public health' with 'an adequate margin of safety.'" Justice Scalia, while voting with the majority, nonetheless was highly critical of the Clean Air Act for allowing the use of such pseudoscience. Although he sharply disagreed with the EPA's abuse of science, Scalia said the language of the law "is absolute," and he had to vote with the majority.
However, a new law is now on the books in the United States called the Data Quality Act of 2001. This long overdue Act requires federal agencies to accurately report the science used in making regulatory decisions. Most agencies complained and sought to remove themselves from having to comply with its requirements - all to no avail, however. At a minimum, the Act requires federal agencies to disseminate accurately all information on their websites and literature. However, many attorneys and top administration officials believe it also includes the science and information used in the rule-making process for creating regulations. Several ongoing court cases should define the limits of the Act.57
When government employees can make decisions without undergoing thorough public scrutiny, abuse is inevitable. Until the Data Quality Act of 2001, there was no incentive for EPA to apply hard science to justify many of its arbitrary and capricious regulations. On May 12, 1998, the National Wilderness Institute issued a scathing report on the corruption and abuse of power by the EPA.58 Six days later, EPA scientist Dr. David L. Lewis held a press conference with the National Wilderness Institute exposing the blatant corruption of science within the EPA:
"Science has become an impediment to an imperious environmental agenda aimed at crafting and enforcing far-reaching regulations of historic proportions. Disturbingly, former EPA Director Browner's actions have lacked scientific merit."59
Risking their jobs and reputation, nineteen additional EPA scientists and managers published a letter on June 8, 1998, accusing the EPA of the same flagrant abuse of power: "EPA employees are harassed, even fired," claimed the whistleblowers, "for protesting illegal or irresponsible behavior by managers who jeopardize the proper enforcement of the law under Superfund, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other environmental statutes." Tragically, such bureaucratic abuses are only met with a hand slap - even if they are found to have created arbitrary regulations. Hopefully, the Data Quality Act of 2001 will be a powerful tool in stopping this terrible abuse of power in the United States. But what about other nations where there are no laws protecting the citizens from government abuse?
There is a better way to administer and enforce federal environmental law than the highly politicized, heavy-handed bureaucratic system administered by the EPA and similar bureaucracies around the world. The temptation for bureaucratic abuse is too high when the power to promulgate and enforce regulations exists three or four levels of government distant from the average citizen. Promulgation and enforcement at the national level also encourages a one-size fits all approach which under-regulates the real problem areas and over-regulates other ones.
The only way to resolve this issue is to shift promulgation and
enforcement to the individual states, permitting states and local
governments to be subject to the same common law concepts of harm and
nuisance as private landowners. It would stimulate local creativity to
find solutions for the real problems faced by that state or county. In
such an approach the EPA could serve as a well trained advisory and
investigative resource not unlike that of the Center for Disease
Control.
Notes and Citations
1 Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.
2 Eric S. Blake, Jerry
D. Jarrell(retired), Edward N. Rappaport and Christopher
W. Landsea. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States
Tropical Cyclones From 1851 To 2004, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS
TPC-4, August 2005.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml
3 Ibid.
4 James Glassman. Are Global
Warming and Katrina Linked? Interview of Dr. William Gray, professor
of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at
Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane
forecasting. Each December, six months before the start of hurricane
season, the now 75-year-old Gray and his team issue a long-range
prediction of the number of major tropical storms that will arise in
the Atlantic Ocean basin, as well as the number of hurricanes (with
sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more) and intense hurricanes
(with winds of at least 111 mph). This year, Gray expects more
activity, with 15 named storms, including 8 hurricanes. Four of them,
he says, will be intense.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/graytranscript.htm
5 Patrick Michaels. "Global
Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection," Tech Central Station,
September 16, 2005.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605F.html
6 Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, p. 174.
7 Peter Doran, et. al. "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response." Nature, January 31, 2002, 415:517-520.
8 Richard B. Alley. "On Thickening Ice?" Science, ,January 18, 2002; 295:451-452. "Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica" Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk Science 2002 January 18; 295:476-480.
9 A.Ohmura, et. al. "A Possible Change in Mass Balance of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in the coming century." J. Climate. 9:2124-35.
10 "Easing off the
(Greenhouse) Gas" NASA, January 15, 2002.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/15jan_greenhouse.htm
11http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/
12 Mears, C.A., and
F.J. Wentz. The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived
lower tropospheric temperature.: Science, August 11, 2005
http://www.scienceexpress
13Roy Spence. "Some
Convergence of Global Warming Estimates," Tech Central
Station. August 8, 2005.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081105RS.html
14 Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie
L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson. "Environmental
Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine. 1997. Roy Spence, "Some Convergence of Global
Warming Estimates,"
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081105RS.html.
15Arthur Robinson,
et.al.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm.
16 D.A. Stainforth, et al. Letter in Nature Vol 453:403-406, 27 Jan., 2005
17 Fred Singer. The Week
that Was, August 13, 2005.
http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/Aug.%2013.htm
18 Philip Pan. "Scientists
Issue Dire Prediction On Warming," Washington Post, January 23, 2001,
p. A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=
article&node=&contentId=A30706-2001Jan22
19 "Global Warming
Extremists," The New American, April 9, 2001, Volume
17(8).
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/04-09-2001/insider/
vo17no08_ins_warming.htm
20 "Further Fallout from
Kyoto Decision," Global Warming Information Page.
http://www.globalwarming.org/polup/pol4-4-01.htm
21 James D Glassman. Kyoto
"Absurd" Says MIT Scientist, Tech Central Station, March 5,
2001.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/030501L.html
22 James
Taylor. "Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized
'Preconceived Agendas,'" Heartland Institute, April 1, 2005,
p. 1.
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ECN%204.05.pdf
23 Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. "Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations." Science 283: 1712-1714, 1999. Also, Staufer, B., Blunier, T., Dallenbach, A., Indermuhle, A., Schwander, J., Stocker, T.F., Tschumi, J., Chappellaz, J., Raynaud, D., Hammer, C.U. and Clausen, H.B. Atmospheric CO2 concentration and millennial-scale climate change during the last glacial period. Nature 392: 59-62, 1998. AND, Cheddadi, R., Lamb, H.F., Guiot, J. and van der Kaars, S. Holocene climatic change in Morocco: a quantitative reconstruction from pollen data. Climate Dynamics 14: 883-890, 1998. AND Gagan, M.K., Ayliffe, L.K., Hopley, D., Cali, J.A., Mortimer, G.E., Chappell, J., McCulloch, M.T. and Head, M.J. Temperature and surface-ocean water balance of the mid-Holocene tropical western Pacific. Science 279: 1014-1017, 1998. AND Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus, J. Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene epoch. Nature 392: 699-702, 1998. AND Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126, 1999.
24 Keith Idso. The Most
Important Global Change. CO2 Science Magazine,
Editorial Commentary, (Vol) 4(8), February, 2001.
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htm
25 Sherwood Idso, Craig
Idso, and Keith Idso. Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a
CO2 Enriched Warmer World. Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, November, 2003.
pp. 17-18.
http://www.co2science.org/reports/health/health2pps.pdf
26 Fernandez, M.D., Pieters, A., Donoso, C., Tezara, W., Azuke, M., Herrera, C., Rengifo, E. and Herrera, A. Effects of a natural source of very high CO2 concentration on the leaf gas exchange, xylem water potential and stomatal characteristics of plants of Spatiphylum cannifolium and Bauhinia multinervia. New Phytologist 138: 689-697, 1998.
27 Mayeux, H.S., Johnson, H.B., Polley, H.W. and Malone, S.R. 1997. Yield of wheat across a subambient carbon dioxide gradient. Global Change Biology 3: 269-278.
28 Craig Idso and Keith
Idso. "CO2-Induced Amelioration of Environmental Stresses."
Topical Reviews, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, Tempe, Arizona, December 15, 1998.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/stress.htm
29 Craig Idso and Keith
Idso. "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," Technology 7S:33-55,
2000. See
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/pdf/idso.pdf
30 "Earth's Becoming A
Greener Greenhouse." Top Story, Goddard Space Flight
Center. NASA. September 4, 2001. Published in Journal of Geophysical
Research - Atmospheres, September 21, 2001.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010904greenhouse.html#images
31 Ibid, p. 24.
32 U.S. Department of
State. U.S. Climate Action Report - 2002 (Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office, May, 2002),p. 2.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/
ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.html
33 Ibid, p. 4.
34 Duane
Freese. "Important US Climate Program is Unheralded," The
Heartland Institute, April 1, 2005. p. 7.
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ECN%204.05.pdf
35 Ibid.
36 The Gleneagles
Communiqué. G8 Gleneagles Summit. Gleneagles, England, July 6-8, 2005,
p. 1.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_Communique,0.pdf
37 Ibid, p. 2.
38 Vision Statement of
Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the
U.S. for a New Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate, U.S. Department of State, July 28, 2005.
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/50335.htm
39 Michael Coffman. Saviors of the Earth? The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement (Chicago: Northfield Publications, 1994), p. 54.
40 Ibid.
41 Michael Coffman. "Ozone
Depletion Enters Twilight Zone." Discerning the Times. (January
1995).
http://www.discerningtoday.org/ozone_depl_twilight_.htm
42 Lomborg, p. 276.
43 Micah Morrison, Insight magazine, April 6, 1992, p. 188.
44 Lomborg, p. 163.
45 Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (London: Penguin, 1979) p. 62.
46 Ibid, pp. 62-63.
47 Daniel B. Botkin and Edward A. Keller. Environmental Science: Earth is a Living Planet. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998) p. 466.
48 Lomborg, p. 165.
49 EPA, Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, (September 2001),
p. 1-2.
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd00/
50 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 2003 Special Studies Edition. Executive Summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Publication No. EPA 454/R-03-005, September, 2003. p. 2.
51 Ibid.
52 Steven J. Milloy and
Michael Gough. "The EPA's Clean Air-ogance," The Wall Street Journal
(January 7, 1997)
http://www.junkscience.com/news/oped.html
53 Ibid.
54 "Sloppy Science at the EPA." Investor's Business Daily, June 3, 1997, p. A28.
55 Fred Singer. "Respite
from the Regulators," Washington Times, (June 8, 1999)
http://www.junkscience.com/jun99/singer.htm
56 Russell Harding, Director
for Environmental Quality for Michigan: EPA's Proposed Air Standards:
Bad Science ... Worse Policy.
http://www.adti.net/html_files/reg/dd/ddharding.htm
57 Susan
Bisong. "Federal Agencies Subject to Data Quality Act,"
FindLaw.
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00312/008569/title/features
58 Bonner R. Cohen,
Ph.D. "The People v Carol Browner, EPA on Trial." National Wilderness
Institute (May 12, 1998).
http://www.nwi.org/SpecialStudies/EPAReport/Overview.html
59 David L. Lewis,
Ph.D. "EPA Science Versus Carol Browner." National Wilderness
Institute (Press Conference, May 18, 2000)
http://www.nwi.org/SpecialStudies/EPAReport/DrLewis.html