Carbon Credits to Offset Your Energy Usage

With the last several postings on biofuels and greenhouse gases, and the next few in line on global warming, this entertaining piece seems like the perfect transition. Sent to us from one of our Energy Counsel Members, Michael Economides from the October issue of the Energy Tribune, we are sure you will want to pass this on to everyone you know as we wanted to pass it on to you.

If you have been confused by the entire concept of carbon credits, this humorous application on the subject will help you grasp the true absurdity of this form on indulgences.

Please read on, leave your comments here, and pass this on to your friends!

Karma Kredits
Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can pay sadness to go away. That’s the idea behind the much-hyped concept of “carbon credits” – which are a sort of climatological karma certificate allowing the bearer to emit gas without fear of social stigma, even if in a crowded space.

Greenhouse gases are the emissions in question, and buying a carbon credit is alleged to offset one’s own carbon dioxide emissions by paying some other unknown entity to not emit the same amount of CO2. This assumes the unknown entity was just about to emit extra gas, but then had his behavior suddenly changed by your payoff.

As proof that this occurred, you get a piece of paper that says “1 ton of CO2.” This then entitles you to feel good while emitting your next ton of said gas. In case you think I have oversimplified this scheme, I refer you to the following statement on the Web-site of TerraPass, a popular dealer of carbon credits:

We've heard customers tell us that the best thing you get when you purchase a TerraPass is the good feeling that comes from knowing you've taken a step toward fighting a serious environmental problem. Beyond that, you'll receive a certificate verifying the amount of carbon dioxide your purchase has removed from the atmosphere.

I’ve heard that the best thing TerraPass gets when you purchase a TerraPass is your money.

You could be an overweight jet-setting millionaire environmentalist (and former vice president) with a carbon footprint the size of Sasquatch in graphite clown shoes, and as long as you bought enough credits you could tread proudly through Eden itself.

I must admit that I have thought about starting my own carbon credits enterprise. The amount of environmental mischief I am thinking about committing – but could be paid not to commit – is surely limitless. For example, I’m thinking about building a 10 million barrel per day refinery out back beside my kids’ swing-set, but for $500, I’ll just put in a picnic table instead (made from sustainable-harvest, fair-trade softwood, by the way, so get that check in the mail).

However, I’m a bit worried that existing carbon credit companies might charge even less than me to do nothing, so I’ve decided to take the concept to the next logical step. I call this program “Karma Kredits.” If you’re thinking about doing anything bad, listen up. For a reasonable price, I’ll not do the same thing, which I assure you I was just about to do.

Suppose you’d like to sleep with your neighbor’s wife this Columbus Day. Well, you need not feel bad. For $750, I will promise not to sleep with your neighbor’s wife too (which activity I already have on my calendar for October 8th). Without your Karma Kredit, two bad things might happen. By paying me, you will surely have prevented one of them – right in your own neighborhood. Have at ’er, boy! Remember, just one wrong makes a right.

Act now, and I’ll include a certificate stating proudly: “1 Neighbor’s Wife” (suitable for framing, an ideal anniversary gift). If you are eyeing your neighbor’s husband, however, I can’t help you. But for a small commission, I suppose I could broker a deal with Sen. Larry Craig (in which case the certificate will be printed on toilet paper).

And if you’re fat (or headed that way), I have a holiday special. I plan on gaining around 400 pounds between now and Christmas. For $1 per pound, I will gain less than this, allowing you to gain that weight and feel good that our average (projected) weight has not changed at all. You may not be able to climb the stairs to your cardiologist’s office, but we’ll be exactly the same, in the aggregate.

Lastly, are you a jerk prone to road rage? For $12 per day, I will cut off no more than three people on my commute. For $18, I’ll actually let one person change lanes with a friendly wave, provided they signal first. This will free you up to go nuts on your next drive. How comforting it will be to know that I may be right behind you, happily waving in the octogenarian motorist you just forced into the esplanade. Together, we’re good people! Together, we’re karma neutral.

Mac Johnson Humorist for the Energy Tribune

Biofuels May Produce More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil

Here is an interesting piece from the British newspaper: The Times. It is written by their environment reporter Lewis Smith. We have left the article with its original use of the “Queen’s English.” Despite the clues in the article, we were unable to locate the exact report Smith is referencing. Please let us know if you find it.

A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.

Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

“One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,” said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.

Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.

Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”

It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an “astounding insight”.

“It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of ’biofuel’ production while quickly abandoning others,” he told the journal’s discussion board.

Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.

The Biofuel Backlash

A plethora of possible postings has arrived in CARE’s in box in the last couple of weeks. Regrettably, other projects and deadlines have prevented us from making the blog a priority. Today, faced with a window of time to get to reviewing, editing, writing an opening, and posting these delicious new tidbits, we are presented with a different predicament: “Do we post them all now? Do we post one or two today and a couple more tomorrow or later in the week? Which ones should we select first? Should we arrange the postings thematically, or vary the topics?” What to do, what to do?

Because we have a couple items on biofuels are in our collection of articles awaiting posting—and the last posting was on biofuel, today, we offer you fodder for this ongoing discussion. The first has been edited for brevity—though it is still long. We have cut some of the text that we perceive will be less relevant to our audience. If you have an interest in biofuels in Europe, we encourage you to check out the full article at: Stratfor.com.

If you have wondered why biofuels have taken such prominent position in the energy security debate—especially when they seem to have such negative baggage, you will find this report looking at the agriculture sector to be insightful.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a scathing report Sept. 11 calling for a dramatic drawdown in the subsidies and preferential trade laws granted to biofuel producers in OECD countries. Libertarian groups on both sides of the Atlantic applauded its call for a reduction in subsidies.

The report is one of a number of efforts designed to deflate support for biofuels in the United States and Europe. Increasing numbers of groups, especially in Europe, are beginning to question the wisdom of the current move toward biofuels as a replacement, at least in part, for gasoline and diesel in vehicles.

The critics, however, are running head on into the powerful agricultural lobbies in the United States and Europe that so successfully championed the issue in the first place. These advocates say that ethanol, biodiesel and other nonpetroleum-based transportation fuels reduce pollution, help fight climate change and improve national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil. Though many policymakers find these arguments compelling, the biofuels issue would not have achieved the political momentum it has without the intense lobbying by the agricultural sector.

In fact, the fate of the current wave of biofuel mandates and the pace at which industrialized countries offer biofuels at the pumps will largely be determined by agriculture interests. The implications are as strong and lasting for developing countries as for the industrialized countries involved.

Plant-based Fuels
The term "biofuels" refers to any number of combustible liquids derived from plants that can be used to create energy. Most biofuel development is directed at use in transportation, where biofuels are envisioned as a replacement for gasoline or diesel fuel. The most prevalent sources of biofuel now are corn ethanol (predominantly in the United States), sugar ethanol (mostly from Brazil) and rapeseed oil for biodiesel in Europe. Among the other current sources are palm and soy oil and various waste products (such as cooking waste) for diesel. In the future, researchers hope to make ethanol from unused portions of agriculture produce--cellulosic ethanol from corn stalks and waste from wood processing.

The creation of biofuels produces dramatically different levels of pollution, depending on the plant used. Ethanol is the same and burns similarly regardless of its source, but the pollution and emissions associated with the specific plant's production cycle vary widely. Corn ethanol, for instance, produces 0 percent to 3 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline when the factors of planting, fertilizing and harvesting the corn are taken into consideration along with the processing and transportation of the fuel, which in the best case requires dedicated pipelines and currently requires overland transportation.

In the United States and Europe, corn currently provides the bulk of ethanol. Europe has recently adopted a stringent biofuel mandate that calls for an escalating percentage of biofuel in its transportation fuel mix.

Politics of Ethanol
The energy bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in August includes a call for more than 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels to be sold in the United States by 2009 and for the amount to escalate to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The catch is that most of the ethanol in 2022 will have to be from "advanced" sources, which is to say from next-generation cellulosic processes. (Europe's emerging policy has a similar clause.) The U.S. numbers will likely be scaled back in the conference committee, but some requirement to increase the use of biofuels will go forward. Once passed and signed, biofuels will be cemented in the national energy mix.

Environmentalists' support for biofuels is tied directly to their support for action on climate change. For environmentalists, imposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions on the United States is their primary objective. They see a carbon cap as the prize, and they figure that anything done in the process of achieving that goal can be fixed later.

To achieve a carbon cap, supporters recognized that they needed not just the political backing of lawmakers from the West Coast and Northeast, but that they also needed a certain amount of political support from the middle of the country. Policymakers in Michigan, West Virginia and Colorado seemed unlikely to come on board because of the stake their states have in the automobile and coal industries. States such as Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota, however, have no clear stake in the climate issue so those battling for a carbon cap offered billions of dollars in subsidies and a guaranteed market for corn ethanol. That was something a farm-state senator could support.

The political support for biofuels already is paying dividends in both Europe and the United States. Corn prices are now more than 40 percent higher than they were a year ago, despite a 15 percent increase in planting. The rising price of corn meant reduced acreage of wheat planting, and this has coincided with a terrible drought in Australia and a falling dollar. As a result, wheat prices have doubled in the past year, to $9 per bushel for the first time ever (more than $10 in France). These are good times for farmers, and ethanol is playing a role in it.

Brazil's Challenge
For Brazil, the existing or proposed barriers to the importation of its biofuels present a severe challenge. It invested heavily in research and development of biofuels and has perfected a system that provides a replacement for gasoline at a competitive price and with a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (corn-based ethanol offers little to no greenhouse gas benefits). Brazil is moving its vehicle fleet to ethanol, which will take most of the country's output, but it has developed capacity to export ethanol as well.

Seeing its ethanol exports blocked by the United States and Europe, Brazil is learning that energy security and climate change were only a part of the reason countries looked to biofuels. Certainly, these arguments were important, but biofuel mandates would not have happened if not for the power of agriculture in both the United States and Europe.

Brazil's problem, then, is that it merely solved the problem politicians talked about--it has developed a fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and comes from a place that is politically stable and friendly to both the European Union and United States. In solving the rhetorical problem without offering a political fix, it has placed U.S. environmental activists and EU politicians in a difficult position, and has not necessarily won markets. The larger problem, a problem that the OECD suggests but does not explicitly state, is that there is little interest in either the United States or Europe in staring down the agricultural interests.

Bart Mongoven is Vice President, Public Policy for Stratfor

Are Biofuels Really The Right Choice?

With all the talk about biofuels—which includes ethanol, one would have to assume that they are the better choice for the environment; that they are “green.” The prevailing thought seems to be that all oil and gas is wrong and all biofuels are right. In fact many environmental extremist groups are actively working to halt all oil and gas production in America. Startlingly, they have had initial legislative success in their campaign. While most everyone agrees that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, completely eliminating oil and gas from the energy mix and replacing it biomass fuels is an exercise in destruction, not conservation. (Maybe it would conserve, but it would conserve oil and gas making them available once the biomass proponents have discovered the error of their ways and spent huge sums of money generating these new production facilities and infrastructure.) Read this interesting piece and think it through to its possible end game. Once you think about, please share your thoughts here.

Ecologist: “Increased Use of Biomass Fuels Criminal”

Our fear of global warming has now become the biggest threat to the world’s wildlife and forests, warns Jesse Ausubel, one of the nation’s pioneer ecologists.

American farmers are clearing trees and draining wetlands to grow millions more acres of corn for ethanol, even though the United States would need to plant corn on virtually all of its 1.9 billion acres of land area to “grow” our gasoline supply. That would wipe out our forests and wild species.

Europe is importing massive amounts of palm oil for biodiesel from steep Indonesian slopes that used to be covered with tropical forest and endangered wild species—and where the annual monsoon rains deliver 100 inches of massively erosive rainfall in three months each fall. This is conservation? Of what?

New York City would have to turn all of Connecticut into wind farms to power its furnaces, air conditioners, computers and plug-in phones. The U.S. would need wind farms covering the land area of Texas—312,000 square miles—even under the false assumption that the wind would always blow at the right speed to generate power. Allowing for wind variability, would we need 640,000 square miles of windmill farms?

Canada would have to dam the land area of Ontario—360,000 square miles—behind concrete walls 60 feet high, to get from hydropower just 80 percent of the electricity that currently flows from its 25 nuclear power stations. How many species would be drowned out?

We’d have to take 150 square kilometers from nature, and “paint them black” with photovoltaic cells to match the output from a single 1000-megawatt nuclear station. Wouldn’t these massive solar arrays change the ecology?

“Renewable fuels may be renewable, but they are not Green,” says Ausubel. “As a Green, one of my credos is ‘no new structures’ but renewables all involve ten times or more [structures] per kilowatt than natural gas or nuclear,” he laments. “Increased use of biomass fuels in any form is criminal.”

Getting the electrical equivalent of one nuclear power plant would require corn from 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa farmland, says the Rockefeller University researcher. That’s because an acre of corn yields only about 50 gallons worth of gasoline per acres per year, against the annual gasoline demand of 134 billion gallons.

That’s why Ausubel says building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment.

This from a man who helped organize the first UN World Climate Conference in 1979. He is a fellow of both the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and Resources for the Future.

Ausubel notes that power sources such as natural gas and nuclear power gain from economies of scale. Renewable fuels, he says, are just the opposite: the best land for wind, hydropower, biomass and solar power will be used up first, leaving land without much sunlight for more solar panels, and non-windy areas for additional windmills.


DENNIS T. AVERYFormer senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, co-author Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1500 Years

Is Global Warming Really A Hoax?

On August 13th it appeared that editors of Newsweek Magazine had an epiphany. The cover featured a photo of the glowing sun. Superimposed on top of it, was the headline: “Global Warming is a Hoax*” However, the asterisk revealed their true motives. The article does little to give an honest look at global warming and instead carries on the mainstream tactic of trashing anyone who disagrees with the prevailing thought. They did not attack CARE. (We are not big enough to be noticed, nor do we actually disagree. We do, however, present viewpoints that differ from the mainstream.) Nor did they attack the viewpoints of the author of this posting. Known for his expertise, Michael Economides (a member of CARE's Energy Counsel) has no shortage of opinions. Upon reading Newsweek’s cover story, the following reaction flowed from his finger tips. Did you read the Newsweek piece? If not, please check it out and then come back and add your comments on the topic.

One of the vilest, most venomous pieces of writing masquerading as journalism was the Newsweek cover story on August 13, 2007.

With the sun as the backdrop, which in the piece got a minor supporting role for global warming, compared to man-produced CO2, the magazine screamed “Global Warming is a Hoax” * and the asterisk led to the clincher as a large enough footnote: “ Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine”.

The attack was so vicious that MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, a well known climate expert and a strong doubter of any unusual global warming is “the kind of man who, if you’re in the minority, he opts to be with you.” Just before the writer gave a hint for the reason for Lindzen’s character flaw. His parents fled Nazi Germany. (I checked my facts. Lindzen is not funded by oil companies or their proxies.)

Well, I am also not in anybody’s pay and I am not even, heaven forbid, a Republican. And I have not relied on the “hundreds of scientists” constantly invoked as signing petitions but never publishing causal papers. I have personally worked on radiation heat transfer and I do not need the opinions of others about anthropogenic global warming, maybe 0.1 degrees centigrade. The postulated global warming simply cannot be caused by man-made CO2.

I am not a climate expert and I am perfectly willing to accept that global warming is happening. But the writer, Sharon Begley, did not even bother to really distinguish between global warming, an occurrence that has demonstrably happened over and over again in earth’s history, something that the climate experts are debating, and the politically loaded anthropogenic part. Make no mistake. The latter is far more salient to the Gores of the world and it is an undisguised, ideologically driven, full frontal attack on American and developed world lifestyles and the energy industry.

Had the writer attempted even remote due diligence, just by asking some of the 800 “authors” of the IPPC report to produce just one reference, she would discover that there is not one paper in the peer reviewed heat transfer or thermodynamic literature that shows the causal relationship between the presumably observed and, especially, forecasted global warming and the increased CO2 at the 300 parts per million levels. Correlation does not prove causation. That’s what I thought until now. I am even willing to accept that global warming can cause enhanced CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the solubility of the gas in the oceans. But the other way around is what is at issue.

Instead, the well funded machine, with only ExxonMobil identified as a funder, is supposed to cast aspersions to what Newsweek thinks is the obvious. By the way ExxonMobil in a well publicized move a few years ago gave $100 million to Stanford University to study global warming issues. Much of that money went to environmentalist type projects.

First, oil companies should love the rhetoric of global warming. They would be watching with glee. If the public is conditioned to believe in alternatives such as wind at $200 per barrel of oil equivalent or solar at $1,000, if taxes are supposed to force conservation while the public uses more and more energy, guess what gift is handed to those that manage oil and gas. The reason we use those energy sources is not because of some ideological propensity. They are the easiest and cheapest to use. The profits margins of oil companies will soar in a preposterously legislated remedy-global-warming future. Environmentalist silliness will strengthen the presumed devils all the while preventing the market to develop into real technologies and alternatives. Solar and wind will never do that.

Second, while slogans and magazine articles lament what they consider to be a looming catastrophe, other than saying oil, gas and coal are bad for you, they are not really suggesting what else can be done because if they did they would quickly find the insurmountable costs. Unless committing economic suicide is what’s in their mind. If the recent virtual economy hiccup can cause the problem that it did, imagine what a forced energy supply disruption will mean for the world.

I have calculated that sequestering just the expected incremental CO2 between today’s levels and 2030 will require 1.7 million wells at a cost of over $7 trillion. Alternative energy sources will cost more.

I am sure that all this nonsense will be swept away by the economy and reality. There is no need to worry. Oil and gas will be the dominant sources of energy for another 50 years, at least.

Prof. Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and also Editor-in-Chief Energy Tribune Houston, TX

Lower Gas Prices' Positive Effect on Industry

Does it seem that the media loves to report on gloom and doom, but seldom presents the positive side of things? This is especially true when referencing gas prices and the oil and gas industry in general. This short piece from one of our favorite sources, the Business and Media Institute, looks at the media’s dire predictions about gas prices, where they really are today and how the lower prices do actually benefit the industry, not just the consumer.

Forbes.com reported on August 7 oil prices are declining and gas prices are reciprocating.

“With gasoline prices peaking in May and subsiding a bit since then, it was only a matter of time before oil followed suit,” wrote Ruthie Ackerman, a reporter at Forbes.com. “Since the summer driving season is also wrapping up, oil demand should naturally decrease, putting a downward pressure on price.”

Leading up to the summer driving season, some in the media warned of $4, $5 and $6 a gallon gasoline. They may have to wait even longer to see those predictions come true as prices fall.

Contrary to conventional wisdom from those in the media, lower oil prices do have a positive effect on the oil and gas industry, as Ackerman pointed out.

“Lower oil prices are not only good for the consumer, but also boost investor confidence. ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) shares jumped 1.7%, or $1.42, to $83.50 at the close of the day Monday, while Chevron (NYSE:CVX) shares shot up 1.2%, to $1.00, to $82.02. BP (NYSE:BP) shares were boosted 1.6%, or $1.04, to $67.54 and Sunoco (NYSE:SUN) increased 1.0%, or 61 cents, to $63.48.

Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked To Sun

As global warming issues continue their presence in the news media, we at CARE continue to share viewpoints that may not make it to the mainstream media who seem to have totally accepted the “sky is falling” mentality without doing further investigation. We believe that people are smart, that if those seeking answers are provided with the complete picture, they will come to their own conclusions that will be more accurate than the spoon-feeding the media offers. Here is an interesting piece from one of our Energy Counsel Members that presents insights into the viewpoint that links the earth’s warming to sun spots. If you are truly searching for answers to the global warming debate, please take the time to review all of the various posting available here on the CARE Blog.

A team of water experts says the pattern of droughts and floods in South Africa shows our global warming was triggered by the variability of the sun’s irradiance rather than by human-emitted CO2. They say variations in South African rainfall patterns are keyed to periodic reversals of the sun’s magnetic field—and to the constantly changing distance between the sun and the earth as both move through space.

In South Africa, alternate 11-year sunspot cycles produce opposite rainfall results. One complete “double sun cycle” occurs every 20.8 years: the “first” cycle brings a big flood, followed by a small drought; the next brings a big drought, followed by a small flood.

Lead author Will Alexander used the double sunspot cycle to publicly predict the end of major South African droughts in both 1995 and 2006. He notes that South African droughts have often been broken at 11-year intervals by severe floods associated with sunspot maxima—as in 1822, 1841, 1863, 1874 and 1885. The research summary appears in the June 2007 issue of the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering.

The South Africans’ conclusion is reinforced by Dr. Robert Baker of Australia, who told a recent meeting of the International Geographical Union that he has found the same 21-year cycle in Australian drought and rainfall. Baker says “the sun is like a musical instrument, vibrating in complex patterns,” with all of the planets moving in similar relationships.

H. N. Bhalme and D. A. Mooley published similar conclusions about India’s floods and droughts in the Journal of Applied Meteorology, September, 1981, based on an Indian flood index compiled from 1891 to 1979. They reported that “a highly significant 22-year cycle in the flood area index was nearly in phase with the 22-year double sunspot cycle.” Bhalme and Mooley also noted that the western U.S. has a similar relationship with the double sunspot cycle and severe flooding.

Clearly, what these water experts are all describing is a global climate connection with the sun.

The number of sunspots on the sun, and their intensity, varies in a cycle averaging 11 years. The distance between the sun and the earth keeps changing slightly and predictably because 1) they move on slightly varying paths through space; and 2) both bodies accelerate and decelerate constantly depending on the combined gravitational forces of the other big planets.

These factors apparently produce the moderate 1,500-year climate cycle on earth, which was discovered in the Greenland ice cores in 1980s and has since also been found globally in seabed and lake sediments, fossil pollen, tree rings and peat bogs.

Earth’s recent global warming occurred too early—before 1940—to be blamed on human CO2 emissions. The net global warming since 1940 is only 0.2 degrees C, with none at all since 1998. There’s little correlation between the earth’s recent temperatures and CO2 levels, but a strong correlation between the sunspot index and subsequent changes in our sea-surface temperatures.

The 1,500-year climate cycle shifts temperatures about 2 degrees C above and then 2 degrees C below the long-term average at the latitude of Washington and Paris, with greater temperature changes near the poles. Temperatures change little near the equator, but rainfall patterns can change greatly; for example, 5,000 years ago the Sahara was wet enough for grazing and hunting, while Kenya was very dry.

The UN climate change panel has declared the solar variations “too small” to produce the climate warming of the past 30 years. However, a recent Danish experiment showed that the solar variations may be amplified fourfold because they create significant changes in the earth’s cloud cover. More clouds cool the earth by deflecting more of the sun’s heat back into outer space.

The evidence for a sun/climate connection keeps pouring in, while all we hear from the Kyoto crowd is “The computer models agree with each other.”

DENNIS T. AVERYFormer senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, co-author Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1500 Years