Via Carpetbagger, we now know the conclusions of a study commissioned by the administration to resolve lingering discrepancies between upper-atmosphere and lower-atmosphere temperature trends. This development should prove particularly important because longstanding disagreement betweent the two datasets has given climate skeptics a relatively rational basis for dismissing the question of change altogether. The data no longer disagrees:
A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.”
The finding eliminates a significant area of uncertainty in the debate over global warming, one that the administration has long cited as a rationale for proceeding cautiously on what it says would be costly limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases.
If you think that this result will finally end the administration’s blockade of sensible climate policy, all that I can say is that you must be new here. Actually, as Benen points out the new study is actually part of a very long con (same story):
…White House officials noted that this was just the first of 21 assessments planned by the federal Climate Change Science Program, which was created by the administration in 2002 to address what it called unresolved questions. The officials said that while the new finding was important, the administration’s policy remained focused on studying the remaining questions and using voluntary means to slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
Writes Benen:
Sure, this new study is conclusive and credible, but there are 20 more studies to go before the White House is prepared to do something about the problem.
By the time the Climate Change Science Program is finished publishing its reports, and proving to the president’s satisfaction that global warming is a genuine crisis, Bush will practically be on his way out of office.
He isn’t kidding. When it comes to climate the solitary administration initiative that I can think of is Bush’s demand that Congress give him the authority to raise CAFE standards. Some have described that as a flip-flop or policy U-turn, but I don’t think that is the case. First, as a Josh Marshall reader points out the administration is hardly breaking new ground by asking for another extraconstitutional authority. Second, if the president has the power to raise CAFE standards then he also has the power to lower them.
So the president and his pals in Congress basically plan to do nothing about climate and they will continue to do nothing as long as they have studies pending. If the president starts to feel a bit bad about Alaskan villages disappearing he can just invite back science fiction’s John Grisham (that would be Michael Crichton, who is as formulaic and intellectually vapid about science as Grisham is about law) to reassure him. I honestly wish that these people were half as good at governing as they are at scheming.
chopper
we definitely need a blue-ribbon panel to deal with this issue.
or a task force.
Perry Como
I think we need Professor Curveball to issue an opinion.
Sam Hutcheson
Out of curiosity, did you mean Micheal Crichton instead of John Grisham?
The Other Steve
Yeah, Chrichton… not Grisham.
Tim F.
Michael Chrichton is the John Grisham of scifi. Formulaic in script and characterization, written at a sixth-grade reading level and largely willing to farm out writing duties to talentless staff. I could have also said Tom Clancy.
The Other Steve
Oh, I get it. :-)
Faux News
Son, you could have a promising career as a senior manager with the Federal Gub’ment. You know that don’t you?
Gurgle
The data no longer DISAGREE, Tim. (cough, cough)
jg
OK I only like one Crichton book (Jurassic Park, I was a dinosaur nut, sue me) But do we have to shit on Clancy. He ain’t the best writer in the world but his stories sure are entertaining.
don surber
“Extraconstitutional” ???
Yea, I agree neither Congress nor the president has the right to tell people how many miles per gallon they should get.
CAFE is extraconstitiutional. Eliminate it
gratefulcub
gratefulcub
It is telling though, isn’t it? He doesn’t ask Congress to raise the CAFE standards, he ask for the presidential authority to change them himself. Does he have any intention of raising them?
Andrew
Surber, you’re good looking, but you might need a bit of help on this. CAFE is not a restriction on people buying automobiles. It is a restriction on corporations — corporate average fuel efficiency. If you want to go build a kit car yourself, you don’t have to meet CAFE standards. However, it is perfectly constitutional for congress to pass a law subjecting corporations to some requirement, sensical or not.
I happen to think that CAFE is horribly bad policy that drove everyone to buy SUVs, and should be replaced by simple gas tax increases, but it is hardly un- (or extra-) constitutional.
Now, as for the president’s ability to change those standards on a whim? Obviously not constitutional, without congress revising said (stupid) law.
Perry Como
I’m not sure I agree the extraconstitutional argument, but I agree with the general idea of eliminating CAFE standards. If some idiots want to buy Hummers that get 4 gallons to the mile, fuck ’em. When it costs $500 to fill up the tank, maybe they’ll get the hint.
Zifnab
Yes, but a gas tax would sell with the American people right now about as well as legislation to kick every man, woman, and child in America in the face.
I think the most politically feasible plan would be the “Oh my good you have too much money” tax, levied against oil company windfall profits. This would be an indirect increase of gasoline – as the oil companies would then raise the rates to secure the difference, further infuriating the public – while at the same time take a stand against the real aggressors, the oil giants.
Because, frankly, I refuse to believe the company line – we had to raise prices to retain our profit margins and… oops, we retained too much profit, but that’s just the market forces and we had nothing to do with it.
As a child of parents who worked for the oil industry, I can tell you that absolutely nothing (perhaps short of Valdez) happens in an oil company by mistake. Exxon, Shell, Texaco, and Dutch all pay tens of millions of dollars a year on thousands of employees to triple-check every major project. These companies have state-of-the-art computer software, massive legal teams, and employee Ph.D. level specialists on an epic scale. Making $9 billion in a quarter was not an accident.
The Other Steve
I actually agree that CAFE is bad policy.
I don’t agree in government as a social instrument, though. So raising gas taxes just to keep people from driving is bad policy.
However, we ought to raise gas taxes to help pay for the real costs of transportation. That is, to pay for all road construction, maintenance, emergency services, etc. On top of that, gas taxes probably ought to cover about half of the US military budget as that is being used to help keep gas artificially low in price compared to alternatives.
Once people see the real costs of things, then the free market will work to give people a choice. But if you set one thing artificially high or low, you distort the free market.
This is my primary opposition point to Republicans, and a point Democrats too often fail to comprehend.
Perry Como
But the futures market is what determines the price of crude. The oil companies don’t control that. Sure, the oil companies could open more refineries, but that’s not going to effect the price per barrel. There’s a finite supply with increasing demand. Of course the price of oil is going to go up.
The Other Steve
Politically feasible? Yes
Bonehead Stupid? Definately
Gas companies will just pass that cost onto consumers, along with a markup. So in the end it costs consumers more.
We definately ought to eliminate subsidies for oil exploration, etc. Another statist manipulation of the free market.
The Other Steve
The proper response from the consumer is to not buy the product.
Hell, boycott just one of them, like Exxon. That’ll send a similar message.
Buck
Hasn’t the supply of oil always been finite? Hasn’t the demand for oil always increased?
I hear a lot about supply and demand but doesn’t the situations in Iraq and Iran have as much to with rising prices as supply and demand?
capelza
Andrew said:
I don’t quite understand you meaning. In my experience, it wasn’t CAFE standards, but the desire to have the hot vehicle.
Not me personally, I have a heavy car for bad weather that stil manages to get 30 mpg on the highway and haul a bunch of stuff in the back. I rarely drive it all, maybe once or twice a week, in town and even rarer oput of town.
Seems to me that what drove the SUV explosion was marketing and vanity. All those folks who just had to keep up with the Joneses.
If you meant something else, I apologise.
Pb
Perry Como,
I’d argue that the oil companies have a lot of influence there for a variety of reasons, but no, they don’t necessarily control it. However, note that the price of crude oil is not simply set by supply and demand, not in any classical sense. We have enough supply to meet the demand, and therefore, in theory, given a competitive and relatively free market, the price of crude oil should drop due to competition, and oil companies shouldn’t have such high profit margins. This is not the case, thanks to all the speculation.
Pb
Buck,
Yes, starting with the rush to war with Iraq, the subsequent destabilization of the Middle East, and the current sabre rattling with Iran have all added to the ‘war premium‘ of the price of crude oil.
Paul Wartenberg
Grisham is who Bush calls on to explain the legality of his signing statements.
Coming soon: “The Signing Statement” starring Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Angela Bennett, Alan Alda, and Tricia Helfer.
Perry Como
Indeed, but oil has been relatively easy to get to for the past century. As demand increased the oil countries ramped up production. But now that the oil fields are depleting it’s getting harder to get the stuff out of the ground. If you believe the peak oil people, cheap oil is going away or may already be gone.
The Other Steve
The two are linked.
Because CAFE standards did not apply to light trucks, the auto companies began marketing light trucks. Because these vehicles were larger and there was greater perceived value, they were able to sell them at a higher profit margin than small cars.
It also helped that the asian economic collapse in ’98 drove gas prices down to $1 a gallon. It gave people a false sense of low prices and they didn’t notice it when they bought the big new SUVs.
capelza
Thanks for the explanation TOS.
I still have little sympathy. Consumers who are crying about gas prices now obviously decided to not pay attention for the past 30 years. It isn’t like they weren’t warned.
That said, I think it is shameful that Big Oil is reaping unprecedented profits from this. Thankfully, my car and our boat truck were bought with this inevitablilty in mind.
I remember being aghast at people who even five years ago were excited about the bigger engines. And of course, everyone needs a four wheel drive to get to the grocery store. Not.
gratefulcub
Anyone else believe Global Warming is real, and that we need to do something about it?
Are we going to use the Bush model: Voluntary Steps?
Everyone voluntarily stop driving so much, and voluntarily buy more fuel efficient cars. Corporations need to voluntarily stop poluting the air we breath and the water we drink. Car companies need to voluntarily make more fuel efficient cars.
gratefulcub
Then apply it to light trucks
SeesThroughIt
Heh, last week as I was walking home from work, I saw a sight that seemed to typify the way America is trending so cleanly, I had to chuckle: A morbidly obese woman (no joke, I would estimate her weight at close to 500 pounds) driving her F-350 V-8 out of the Jack in the Box drive-thru.
Buck
Perry I am not sure that I believe the peak oil people. Does that mean I am going to hell?
The Other Steve
I actually agree. I agreed in 1999 and 2000 when the Bushwhackos were whining about supposedly high gas prices too.
I moved closer to work. I’ve always bought cars which get reasonable fuel economy and looking at that fuel economy is parto f my buying decision.
So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who live 75 miles away from work and drive a truck.
Andrew
Well, have fun taking on GM and Ford.
Sstarr
Not that it’s a huge crisis, but I’ll miss skiing. In Seattle we have a couple of ski areas very close to town – the closest about 45 minutes away. It’ll take a rise in the average November / December temperature of about 2 to 3 degrees farenheit to make these ski areas unprofitable. Obviously, it’s impossible to really know the effect of a global climate change on a small patch of mountainside in Washington, but I can guess….
Fortunately Whistler/Blackcomb is only five hours north.
Perry Como
Peak oil is inevitable, unless you listen the abiotic oil people who are pretty much batshit insane. The question is when will peak oil occur, not if it will occur. At some point we will hit a point where cheap oil is done for. I’m not sure if we are there yet, but the oil ETF is looking kinda sexy these days. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to see $100 oil by the end of the year, especially if this current crop of morons in Washington keep sabre rattling.
Dobson says yes.
VidaLoca
Yes, but cheer up — we all are. In a handbasket.
Buck
Perhaps that will be the Y3K scare.
P.B. Almeida
That said, I think it is shameful that Big Oil is reaping unprecedented profits from this.
Why is it shameful? If a whole lotta people are willing to give them gazillions of dollars for their product, and this increases their profits, why should they be ashamed? Related question: if government takes away or reduces their profits, how will their incentive to produce more oil be affected?
ppGaz
Well, peak oil is not spookapalooza like Intelligent Design. It’s a simple extrapolation of an extractive model.
The question I have is, once the price of oil pushes into the zone where conversion of oil sand is feasable, aren’t we into new territory, and a whole new supply curve?
There is a shitload of oil sand out there.
capelza
How about a fucking incentive to pursue alternate energy sources? My sympathy for oil companies and the stockholders dries up pretty damn fast until they give up their subsidies and any special consideration from the government. That is one of the reasons their record profits are obscene.
But then again, this country allowed itself to be held hostage to them, so whatever.
Perry Como
It only becomes feasible at a certain price point. Once we reach that point oil is no longer cheap. Considering that the entire modern world is based on cheap oil, it’s going to be a tough transition.
Pb
P.B. Almeida,
Because their ‘product’ is basically a utility by now–there’s no real added value, and no real alternatives for many people, just a high barrier to entry and an oligopoly. What if the same thing happened to your electric bill, (it is, in some places, thanks to natural gas prices…) and your electric company was making record profits? How about your water bill?
Anyhow, I don’t know about you, but I’d be ashamed if I were given a retirement package equal to the salaries of 10,000 workers in this age of slashed pension benefits and layoffs. The average CEO salary was 42x that of the average worker salary back in 1980–by 2004, it was up to 431x that of the average worker (it peaked in 2000, at 531x).
Personally, I’d rather *only* earn $2 million dollars a year, and be able to hire 400 extra workers–it’d actually be better for the company. But that’s not how many CEOs play the game–‘maximizing shareholder value’ means something entirely different when you also just happen to own millions of shares and stock options.
Well, if the government ‘takes away’ their profits, then that would give them more incentive to actually use that money for something apart from fat CEO compensation plans and investment schemes–like increasing refinery capacity, increased exploration, increased research into alternative fuel sources, etc.
And if the government reduces their profits, well they still have a profit motive–they’d just have to sell more oil to get the same profits, which would tend to lower the price.
OCSteve
Tim – if you’re still around this thread…
I’m curious about your take on this guy, who seems to make a pretty good case for questioning the validity of the “hockey stick” in climate reconstructions based on dendroclimatology. That is, he recreates it using random numbers.
It’s a bit over my head, but he seems to make a pretty good case.
Tim F.
OCSteve,
Thanks for the link. The writer has intellectual rigor – he explicitly limits his criticism to dendroclimatology (interpreting climate from tree rings) which is one of many ways that we measure a changing global climate. I also like his use of logic. Most people who set out to disprove climate science attack the syllogism if P then Q…P therefore Q, where P is scientific evidence and Q is climate change, by using the obvious logical fallacy not P therefore not Q. The author rather argues if P then Q or R where R is a random artifact of the modeling protocol, which means that affirming the antecedent may but does not necessarily affirm the consequent. I have no doubt that he would like to knock down climate science altogether but it is refreshing to see someone at least start off in an intellectually honest way.
He gets deep into statistical wonkishness that lies outside my training so I cannot tell you whether his criticism of the hockey-stick model holds water. But assuming that it is accurate, the best that he has done is introduce incertainty into one of the many ways that we measure climate. As this post shows, other measures have reached a certainty level that makes the reigning models difficult to dismiss.
Pb
OCSteve,
Actually, I don’t know how much that actually realates to dendroclimatology (unless that’s the study of statistical parlor tricks?), but even if it did, he’d still have to explain away the other sources for the millennial temperature record, like “ice cores, corals, historical documents and some lacustrine and marine sediments”.
Kirk Spencer
Buck and the rest who’ve drifted into the peak oil discussion, I’d like to present two apparent facts.
First, the United States did experience a peak oil event in 1971.
Second, world sweet light crude production has been declining since 2004.
I say apparent because there are a few “ifs and buts” associated. But by most measures these are facts. From them I draw one conclusions:
B) Peak oil is not only possible, we’re at if not past it at the global level. (We just haven’t fully recognized it.)
Kirk Spencer
ppGaz, I used to think like you – there’s a lot of oilsand (and shale and so on) out there. Then I did some research.
To get oil from oilsand, it has to be mined, then boiled and skimmed to extract the raw material. What comes out is (simplistically) VERY heavy crude. OK, big deal, something’s better than nothing. Except…
It takes more energy to extract and refine oilsand to a usable state than the usable state provides. That is, it’s energy negative. It’s like paying $10000 in expenses for a product you can sell for $9000, except the unit of measure is calories (or BTUs or whatever you use for energy base is) instead of dollars.
Not a good idea for the long run, I think.
OCSteve
Agreed. Thanks for the critique. Like I said, it was over my head, so I wasn’t sure how much credence to give him.
bud
It only becomes feasible at a certain price point. Once we reach that point oil is no longer cheap. Considering that the entire modern world is based on cheap oil, it’s going to be a tough transition.
Right now, Oil sand is producing at $32/bbl.
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/syncrude/
The future pricing looks to be even better.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html
I’d say we’re well into that territory. For some definition of “cheap”, you may be right, but, when you account for inflation, that number ($32) keeps us in the same ballpark we’ve been in for 30 years.
Pb
bud,
That’s interesting. I wonder if it’d be possible to use a solar laser for the heat source instead…
scs
I don’t know, John Grisham was a practicing lawyer before he wrote his books, no? So, as you are not a lawyer, Tim, how would you be able to judge whether his take on lawyers is intellectually vapid? And since you can’t honestly evaluate John Grisham’s knowledge, maybe your evaluation of Crichton is off as well.
Also, you got more info on ethanol? Is that the solution to our problems?
tzs
Ethanol, shmethanol. Why not N-butanol? Used by the Brits during WWII when they had no access to oil supplies.
bud
Do I detect a whiff of snark?
No matter; the process produces more energy than it uses, and the pricing includes all those costs. If we ever get to solar lasers, I would think that photovoltaics would be have first call on their output. We’re going to see some disruption – it’s gonna get worse before it gets better- while the investment is made and the process scaled up, but “peak oil” is a chimera.
What really annoys me is that Venezuela has at least as much oil sand as Canada, and we’re going to wind up listening to Chavez, or his intellectual heir, talking about how we’re stealing their resources, ignoring, again, that without the Nortamericano’s expertise and investment, the “resources” would simply be non-arable land.