Coolwire's take on the issue of Russia not ratifying the Kyoto protocol and implications for the future of the Kyoto process.

Last September Russia declined to ratify the Kyoto protocol which now fails to get onboard the 55% of global carbon emitters that the process required for it to come into "law". This colossal failure of years of Green armtwisting was met by deafening silence from the usual coalition of IPCC inspired / western Green media spin merchants
Climate sceptics have to state loud and clear that the IPCC process now has no legitimacy, the long gravy train of sequential five star conferences massaging a pre-arranged "scientific" agenda should now be dead.

Greenhouse sceptics have for over a year been closely examining the "chicken entrails" of winks & nods out of Moscow looking for signs of which way Russia would jump when faced with the Euro rattling by the Brussels enviro Czars, weird contradictions posed by Kyoto juxtaposed against the annual horrors of Russian weather and the over-riding imperative not to impede growth in the Russian economy.

Coolwire says that all the signs point to Mr Putin deciding many months ago that the disparate elements in this policy shambles could not be bound together in a shape sufficiently useful to Russian interests and quietly left the September "Kyoto process" to be destroyed by the Russian climate science experts. These Academicians who have seldom been heard to say "boo" in over a decade of IPCC warping of climate science, roared like Lions last September when let of the leash by the Kremlin.

To be sure, "son of Kyoto" will be on the slipways now, readying for launching probably in the northern summer of 2004 but what would be the cost to European taxpayers of getting Russia's attention again. It is difficult to see Moscow re-engaging in this peripheral western Green fantasy when faced with policy realities on a scale of the Chechnyan horrors, tweaking the ex USSR economy to release a few more driblets for the masses, the cold hard facts that oil is the best card in their hand, all overshadowed by looming elections. Coolwire would bet there are not too many European Environment ministers seeing Kremlin red carpet lately.

Power Failure Traps London Commuters  28, August, 2003

The power failure Thursday in London should be a timely warning of what lies ahead. A society that is deliberately winding down reliable and proven sources of electricity generation in favour of windmills must expect power blackouts and brownouts to be an ever increasing fact of life. You do not have to be clairvoyant to predict that if the trend to rely more on windmill generated electricity continues then there will be increasing deaths in the future due to winter cold spells and summer heat extremes. But hey, this will only kill the old, the poor and the weak; the wealthy and ruling classes who can afford little backup generators will be OK, no worries.

JUNKAUDIT No. 1; Comments in green.

©  Junkwatch, August 2003

Speech: Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage
The Hon Dr David Kemp, MP.   Australian Resources and Energy 2003 National Conference, Sydney
Wednesday, 16 July 2003, Check against delivery "Speech to the Australian Resources and Energy 2003 National Conference"

Introduction

Thank you Mark and good afternoon to you all.

I'm pleased to be here today, to talk about our efforts to reduce Australia's greenhouse signature.

“Greenhouse signature”: jargon, and junk:

• The so-called enhanced greenhouse effect – i.e. the alleged temperature effect of additional CO2 – is unproven.
• 
  Australia’s industrial emissions of carbon dioxide are in most years less than its absorption through plant growth.

So our “signature” is usually in invisible ink.

The evidence is that the world is warming and that human action in the production of greenhouse gases is a factor in that warming. Australia needs to respond to the consequences of climate change, and to the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Er, what evidence?

Earlier this month, the World Meteorological Organisation stated that as global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme weather events can be expected to increase.

Hmm... According to climate models, no doubt.  Of course, everyone knows computers never make a mistake, even if, in this case, they never give the same answer – and not only between models, but even if you run the same model on different computers.  Nevertheless we have had 200 years of industrial emissions and there is a not a scrap of evidence that they have had the slightest effect on extreme weather.

In 2002 there were record high and low temperatures, and record storms, in different parts of the world.

In what year, since records began, have record high and low temperatures, and record storms, NOT been recorded in different parts of the world?  Who writes this nonsense?  Does your speechwriter know what “meteorology” means?

In June 2002, southern France experienced 40 degree plus temperatures, five to seven degrees above the average; Geneva recorded its hottest June on record.

No mention of Canadian Great Lakes and Baltic Sea freeze-over events, or the Macquarie Island record cold.

In May, the United States experienced a record of 562 tornadoes in a month. The previous record was 399 in June 1992.

In India, the pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of 45 degrees leading to the deaths of at least 1400 people.

It is only in January 2003  that a "Killer Cold" gripped a large area of India, Nepal and Bangladesh causing over 1800 deaths.  Such selective quoting, truly weak, pathetic and shameful for a cabinet minister. The other irony is that the idiocy of Kyoto will only hinder the efforts of people in the Third World to improve their lot.  These people that died needed better shelter, more prosperity and access to cheap energy, not the baleful influence of the IPCC and Kyoto.

The organisation says that new record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe but in recent years the number of such extremes has been increasing.

[From www.john-daly.com:] The WMO in Geneva was put this question by a correspondent in the light of the WMO claim in their press statement that extreme events were on the increase -

"According to the above press release, the current climate continues to break records. In the statement it says: "New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing."  Could this simply be the result of better communications and higher reporting of extreme weather than ever before?"

The reply by Ken Davidson (Director, World Climate Programme, WMO) effectively contradicted the WMO original `scientific' statement.  His response to the question -

"You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical and empirical) are not present to conclusively state that the number of events have increased.  However, the number of extreme events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased both through the meteorological services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster reporting agencies and corporations.  So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting."

So there you have it.  Communications and monitoring have improved markedly since decades  ago, and it is this factor which has influenced the `increase' in extreme events.  The original WMO statement was clearly misleading and unscientific as it did not qualify its claims with a caution about the communications/monitoring  factor.

New analyses of data for the northern hemisphere indicate that the increase in the temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the last 1000 years.

Yes, and the Dairy Industry has just been re-introduced to Greenland after the Viking colony there was wiped out by the Little Ice Age.

Australian data shows that there are measurable long-term trends in our climate, both nationally and regionally. Australia-wide temperature records show a warming of about 0.7°C since 1910.

Start the trend 30 years earlier in 1880 and there is no significant trend.

The warmest year on record was 1998. 2002 was the fifth warmest year on record. Since 1910, South-west Western Australia has become 25per cent drier in winter, with annual rainfall well down.

Start the trend 30 years earlier in 1880 and 2002 would not be the 5th warmest year on record. To use the year 1910 in this statement about SW WA rainfall is a mistake, there would be no significant records pre-1910 to compare with. This reveals stunning ignorance of data in those preparing Kemp's speech. In fact 1975 is the year commonly used by researchers eg CSIRO, WA water authorities etc, making this comparison.  Furthermore, CSIRO data shows the fall off post 1975 is in fact nearer 10% NOT the 25% quoted by Kemp. See map by CSIRO/IOCI at. http://au.geocities.com/perth_water/pearman.html

Climate change is a reality, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is new evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Climate change is natural.  Climate is always changing.  The factors that drive climate change are not well understood.  The IPCC is an intergovernmental, i.e. a political negotiating body.  Most top climatologists do not participate, and do not accept its conclusions:

Prof. R. S. Lindzen [from http://www.john-daly.com/TAR2000/lindzen.htm”]: “Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive.  Somewhat ashamedly I must admit to being the only active participant in my department.  None of this matters a great deal to the IPCC.  As a UN activity, it is far more important to have participants from a hundred countries – many of which have almost no active efforts in climate research.  For most of these participants, involvement with the IPCC gains them prestige beyond what would normally be available, and these, not surprisingly, are likely to be particularly supportive of the IPCC.” 

There has been some conjecture of late about the modelling cited by the IPCC and whether their prognostications on the extremes of temperature increases are precisely accurate.

Understatement of the month. Such conjecture is not exactly new:

http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/ipcccont.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/cosmos.html
http://marshall.pjdoland.com/article.php/71.html

With the best information and the best science, this is an argument that can really only be settled over time, and the Howard Government does not base its policy on any particular temperature levels.

You will never get the best information and the best science if you commit yourself to political action on the basis of fairy tales about extreme weather.  What you will get is what you want to hear, witness:

The Bureau of Meteorology has concluded that the more severe impact of the current drought arises from the relatively higher temperatures during 2002 compared with earlier droughts such as those of 1982 and 1994.

Their figures show temperatures during 2002 were 1.22°C higher than the long-term average, compared with the previous record of 0.91°C.  .

This illustrates that even very slight increases in temperature can put great pressure on our communities and producers, our ecosystems and species.Yes, just like an increase in warmth puts pressure on the Florida tourist industry, compared to say Newfoundland.

In recognition of this reality, in August last year the Government commissioned research to improve our understanding of likely impacts from climate change, and to explore ways to minimise the effect of those impacts.

The main undisputed impact is that greenhouse warming would, with normal adaptation and absent other changes, increase the Australian wheat crop by 20-30 per cent.  This even appears in the Holy Qu’ran of the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001wg2/small/08.02.jpg

The Howard Government's greenhouse response, with substantial funding going to the energy and resources sector is a good indication that we are treating climate change seriously and globally.

What a pity, since the whole thing is a fairy tale.

I have been encouraged by the industry take-up of our voluntary programs for reducing greenhouse emissions.

If they volunteer, they get subsidies.  So they volunteer.  The subsidies come from the pockets of Australian taxpayers, which reduces both the taxpayers’ personal purchasing power and the overall productivity of the economy.  Why not just hand this portfolio to the Green Party?

In developing Australia's future greenhouse strategy, we are mindful that the nations best placed to tackle environmental problems are those who can afford to do so.  At least you implicitly admit there is a cost, instead of pretending that the waste you propose will promote prosperity.  One consolation point!  Thus, maintaining our competitive advantage is crucial and we are keen to continue to work with industry to ensure that happens.

It is through government's partnerships with industry that we will best meet the challenges posed by climate change and best maximise the opportunities it presents.

For the energy and resource industries, it means considering the impact of climate change when developing business strategies and making investment decisions. This is already occurring and will be critical in preserving competitiveness in global markets that are beginning to factor in the need for a reduced greenhouse intensity.

Some of you will have participated in, or be aware of the Carbon Disclosure Project. For those who are not, it is worth considering. Major investors, representing something like $7 trillion in assets, surveyed the world's 500 largest companies on their responses to the commercial risks of climate change. Whatever your views on this initiative, we can expect more like it. Companies that are not dealing with climate change risks can expect investment repercussions.

Translation: Companies who do not bow down to blackmail and extortion by green lobby groups can expect to be targeted by smear campaigns, boycotts, “direct action” and disinvestment recommendations.  The Carbon Disclosure Project is run by Eileen Claussen, a U.S. lobbyist.  She uses the Project to “advise” companies to monitor and disclose their carbon emissions – just in case governments might happen to do the awful thing of regulating emissions – and then she uses the Pew Charitable Trusts to call on governments to regulate emissions:

http://www.cdproject.net/
http://www.pewclimate.org/

Today I'll be looking at how we can maximise the opportunities presented by climate change at the national and international level, now and in the future.

To maximise opportunities for Australia, simply impose absolutely no restrictions whatever on carbon dioxide.  That way we get all the benefits of increased CO2 (e.g. clear increases in agricultural productivity) and of warmth (if there is any – very doubtful) without wasting taxpayers’ money.

[Pollution is an entirely separate issue.  Carbon dioxide is not pollution.] 

Australia's position on Kyoto and rationale

This government is committed to developing an approach to climate change that is effective in dealing with greenhouse emissions. We've demonstrated our commitment with our $1 billion investment tackling greenhouse emissions.

$1 billion of taxpayers’ money already down the drain.  Great!

By the end of this decade, the Government's greenhouse abatement programs will deliver about 60 million tonnes annually in emissions reductions - the equivalent of taking all passenger cars off Australia's roads. This forms a strong platform on which to develop Australia's longer-term strategy and puts Australia within striking distance of its 108% Kyoto target.

So we go hell for leather to meet our target under the Kyoto Protocol, even though we have refused to ratify it and all sides agree that it would have no real effect, even were it completely met by all signatories, and even if CO2 does cause LARGE “climate change”.  Brilliant!

Climate change provides growing opportunities to use our world leading technologies to reduce both domestic and global emissions. Many companies represented here have contributed to this. Many of you are operating at world's best practice so far as greenhouse is concerned. Even so, sometimes it is necessary for Australia's emissions to increase in order to create a large decrease elsewhere. That is a good thing for the climate.

The $25 billion LNG contract with China is a good example. The contract will add around one million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually to Australia's emissions, but by replacing coal fired power in China it will reduce China's emissions by around 7 million tonnes a year - a substantial reduction in global emissions.

Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and at present has no plan to do so, but we are still actively engaged in promoting truly global action. The Protocol is not in our national interest and will remain that way without a clear pathway for the involvement of developing countries, and without the United States.

If Australia were to ratify, Kyoto would create obligations for Australia that are not imposed on many of our regional trading competitors. If these arrangements continued over the longer term, industries could be driven overseas by competitive pressure to countries that have made no commitment to achieving emissions reductions. Such a situation would mean an increase in global greenhouse emissions, not the reduction we are all seeking. That would not be a good thing for the climate.

So we talk our regional trading partners into this feeble-minded nonsense, and then join up ourselves.  Terrific!

Even with all the best intentions of all the countries who have signed Kyoto, or who may be signing in the future, estimates are that, it will bring about a modest 1% reduction in global greenhouse emissions by 2012.

Compare this with the need, on the basis of the best current scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for a reduction in global emissions by around 60% by the end of this century to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In the absence of the US, the Kyoto Protocol covers only one third of global emissions. The United States, outside the Protocol, emits around 24% of the world's emissions.

China emits around 13% and India 4% with an increase in emissions of over 50% in the last decade. However their status as developing countries means that they do not have to adopt targets to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Developing countries' carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion increased by 30% in the last decade. Some developing countries are reducing the growth in their emissions as the result of the adoption of new technologies. The fact remains however, that they are not legally obliged to do so.

These figures relate only to carbon dioxide.  If you take all the so-called greenhouse gases, the picture is rather different.  The USA emits less than 20 per cent of the total, and developing countries emit by far the majority of non-CO2 “greenhouse gases”, especially methane and CFCs.  In fact, developing countries already emit the majority of greenhouse gases.

The Government has received a number of inquiries by Australian firms regarding their status vis-a-vis the Kyoto market-based mechanisms. As a non-Party to the Kyoto Protocol, the Australian Government cannot participate directly in the Kyoto mechanisms.

However, the rules agreed at Marrakech in November 2001 do not discriminate between firms from countries that have and have not ratified the Protocol, meaning that Australian businesses are not precluded from participating in the Kyoto mechanisms.

The Howard Government will address this more closely with the release soon of a paper explaining in more detail the rules agreed in Marrakech in 2001 for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

We are also looking into possible ways to facilitate the involvement of Australian businesses in the emerging international markets for greenhouse technologies and services. Australian industries are world leaders in greenhouse action and have much to contribute to the international effort on climate change response.

We don't need to ratify the Protocol to make a difference, domestically and internationally.

You mean you don’t need to ratify Kyoto to implement it anyway.

Already there is evidence of Australian success in decoupling economic growth from greenhouse emission growth. Our most recent national inventory showed Australia's greenhouse emission grew by 2.1 per cent in 2000, while the economy grew by 4.3 per cent. Emissions per dollar gross domestic product (GDP) are 24 per cent lower in 2000 than in 1990. By 2010, we expect they will be 41% lower.

Furthermore, we have achieved these gains without sacrificing Australian jobs and whilst maintaining one of the highest rates of economic growth in the developed world.

So we reduced emissions per dollar of GDP without sacrificing jobs, and without emission caps.  Amazing!  We have achieved energy efficiency without strangling the economy with emission caps and permits.  Gee I wonder why that is?  I wonder if the fact that energy costs money might have something to do with it? 

I wonder if energy is still going to cost money in future?  I wonder if that might encourage firms and individuals to save money by being more efficient in their use of energy?  Nah…impossible.  What we need is a scheme to measure, monitor, price and regulate carbon throughout the whole economy.  Now which department can we get to run that? 

International efforts

Internationally, we are working for a global approach that will lead to effective action by all major emitters and that will reduce the concern of developing countries that their economic growth is threatened. We know that we need a global solution to this global problem.

There are a number of uncertainties in the global picture at the moment. First we do not know whether in fact, the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force. This requires Russian ratification, and I have seen nothing definitive on that score.

Certainly time is fast running out for Russian ratification to result in entry into force by this year's Conference of Parties to the Climate Convention, COP9. For this to occur, Russia would have to ratify by the end of August.

This uncertainty is affecting preparation for COP9, in which Australia has a significant role - in part, because we chair the Umbrella Group.

Gee, let’s hope Russia ratifies Kyoto soon, so as to put more pressure on us to do it too.  Then we’ll be forced to introduce these emissions permits no matter how much damage it does.

Most of the rest of the speech is about how co-operative companies have been in coming forward to accept taxpayers’ money to implement measures that they either would have done anyway (i.e. a waste of taxpayers’ money) or wouldn’t have done anyway (i.e. an economic distortion).  Two highlights:

Industry has taken up the challenge of delivering new renewable energy projects. MRET is just over two years old but is already delivering significant investment and jobs - a situation that we hope to see continue. Around 170 power stations run on renewable energy are being accredited across Australia, covering a wide range of technologies.

It’s delivering investment of taxpayers’ money in the form of subsidies for inefficient and unreliable power.  It’s creating jobs because it is inefficient, unreliable, and high-maintenance.

The Commonwealth has commissioned the National Hydrogen Study to gain a better understanding of the issues and potential for utilising hydrogen as an energy carrier to improve energy security and reduce environmental impacts.

Here are the conclusions you will come to if the Greens don’t hijack the Study:

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Meth_In_Tank-GordonPrather.htm
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/H_economy.htm

The study will also assess whether the general optimism for hydrogen is justified and examine strategies and actions that may be appropriate for governments and key stakeholders.

The general optimism about hydrogen is in the minds of the green ideologues who run your department.  It is not shared by scientists and engineers.  It’s a pity you didn’t ring a few up before wasting money on this nonsense.  It is even sadder that there is no one in your department that cannot simply answer this question from his or her own knowledge.

 Russia set to ratify Kyoto Protocol
Hirokazu Igarashi Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent

Russia has moved a step closer to ratifying the 1997 Kyoto Protocol following the conclusion by an ad hoc government team investigating the possible effects of the pact on the country that the agreement would be free from economic and political risks, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Monday.

Russian government sources said the team of officials, which is coordinating Moscow's stance toward the pact by listening to the input from all relevant ministries and agencies, has conveyed its conclusion to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian leader is now expected to ask the Russian parliament as early as September to began deliberations on the climate change accord with a view to ratifying it, the sources said. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20030722wo41.htm

Arrhenius revisited

We all remember how from the first days of the Greenhouse scare 15 years ago we were told that a Swede, Arrhenius in 1896 had discovered and measured the Greenhouse Effect to be 6 degrees Celsius for a doubling of carbon dioxide.  Dutch geophysicist Hans Erren has gone back to the original papers of Arrhenius and Langley and discovered that the radiation spectrum used by them was incomplete and applying modern measurements to their observations the rise would be 0.22 degrees Celsius.      More Greenhouse dogma pilloried.

To read Hans Erren's findings in detail see his website (my links page)

We all remember the Greenhouse dogma about how rising carbon dioxide levels will produce warming which will in turn carbon dioxide to be expelled from warming oceans thus leading to a runaway warming.  The dreaded "positive feedback".   An Estonian mathematician Dr. O. Karner has studied satellite temperature data and solar irradiance data and found that tropospheric temperatures track solar changes and that there is in fact a negative feedback in the earths climate system.  Following is an extract from the abstract of his paper On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, 2002 
O. Ka¨rner
Tartu Observatory, To˜ ravere, Estonia   Download pdf file of paper

"Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to
the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer
than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate
system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result
emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the
tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate
change."     Another Greenhouse shibboleth shafted

Another very significant paper published as a "Letter to Nature" has been largely ignored by the Greenhouse industry

"Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate"
Eugenia Kalnay & Ming Cai
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20770-2425, USA     NATURE | VOL 423 | 29 MAY 2003 | For authors web site www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay    To read paper ( very readable with diagrams) download pdf file.

Kalnay and Cai compare trends in the USA surface temperature record with "..trends in a reconstruction of surface temperatures determined from a reanalysis of global weather over the past 50 years, which is insensitive to surface observations, to estimate the impact of land-use changes on surface warming. Our results suggest that half of the observed decrease in diurnal temperature range is due to urban and other land-use changes. Moreover, our estimate of 0.27 degrees C mean surface warming per century due to land-use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone."

Readers will note that 0.27 degrees C per century is circa HALF of the IPCC / Jones trend and we sceptics remember that Dr. Jones and his followers have always quoted that their trends have no more than 0.05 degrees UHI effect.   ( Note that the Kalnay and Cai findings apply to the USA temperature data, which has been better processed and modulated than the global data used by Jones.)  We wait with baited breath for the Kalnay and Cai techniques to be applied to, for example the old USSR grid point trends of Jones.

You read it first here.
 

Return to Coolwire index
Return to front page