Posted by
Always To The Right on Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:09:30 PM
Levis.
Original jeans. Original hypocrisy.
Levi
Strauss & Co. is so worried about CO2 emissions that it quit the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest over the Chamber’s opposition to
climate legislation.
But if Levi Strauss were really concerned about CO2 levels, it would also go out of business.
According to the company’s own analysis, a typical pair of the company’s jeans is responsible for about:
- 70 pounds of CO2 emissions;
- 750 gallons of water use; and
- 111 kilowatt-hours of electricity use.
About 450 million pairs of jeans are sold in the U.S. annually. Of this amount, about one-third are sold by Levi Strauss.
Simple math indicates, therefore, that Levi Strauss annual sales of jeans are responsible for about:
- 7.5 million tons CO2 emissions — equal to the annual emissions of 625,000 SUVs;
- 112 billion gallons of water use — about the annual water use of 879,000 homes; and
- 1.67 gigawatt-hours of electricity use — about the annual use of 150,000 average homes.
To help Levi Strauss save the planet, then, the answer is clear: we should go naked and it should go broke. (Green Hell)
White House encouraged by climate bill status
WASHINGTON,
Oct 22 - The White House is encouraged by progress on a climate change
bill in the Senate and is working to advance it even if a December
deadline passes, an aide to President Barack Obama said on Thursday.
Carol Browner, Obama's top adviser on climate and energy issues, told
Reuters that White House officials were reaching out to Democratic and
Republican senators in an aggressive push to move the bill forward.
"There have been some bipartisan conversations that we find very
encouraging," Browner said in an interview. "We are going to continue
to do everything in our power to keep this moving."
If a law is
not passed by the time U.N. talks on a global warming pact begin in
December in Copenhagen, the United States would still have a strong
position on the issue in the negotiations, she said.
"Wherever we are in the process, we will be able to manage in Copenhagen."
Browner, who has expressed doubts that a bill would become law by
December, said U.S. negotiators would stress Obama's domestic
initiatives on climate change and renewable energy since coming into
office. (Reuters)
"We'll
have been in office by the time we get there, what, 10 months? And yet
if you look at what we've accomplished, its quite significant," she
said.
Climate bill crunch time
A
climate change bill will get top billing Friday with a critical meeting
among Democratic leaders to set a timeline for debate, a major speech
by President Barack Obama and release of a crucial impact study by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the lead sponsor of a Senate
climate bill, plans to meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on
Monday to set a timeline for committees to finish work on the
legislation – possibly as soon as Thanksgiving. And Environment and
Public Works Chairwomen Sen. Barbara Boxer said she plans to release
new sections of the climate bill that she co-authored with Kerry on
Friday. The release of her bill comes as the EPA is set to release a
study of the economic impact of the Senate version of the global
warming legislation. (Politico)
U.S. public support for AGW orthodoxy dropped by 14 percentage
points since 2008
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has published their newest numbers
documenting the changing opinions about global warming in the U.S.
Pew, The
Guardian, Associated
Press, a WSJ blog I, II,
Wash. Indep., Dakota
Voice
The October 2009 numbers are mainly compared with the results in April 2008: I will refer to 2008 and 2009.

The American worries about global warming cooled down, Pew Research Center showed, even as Pew Center on Global
Climate Change attempted to gather its last worriers again.
Is there solid evidence that the Earth is warming [at all]?
In 2008, "Yes" was chosen by 71% of the respondents. Now it is 57%
only: a drop by 14 percentage points. You may want to know that both in
2006 and 2007, the figure was at 77% - a drop by 20 percentage points
in 2 or 3 years.
Is there solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of human activity?
In 2008, the "Yes" score was at 47%, i.e. almost one half agreed with
the basic AGW statement. In 2009, the number dropped to 36%, i.e. by 11
percentage points. About one third of Americans believe in man-made
global warming today - which makes this religion less popular than
creationism. ;-)
If we extrapolate this trend, the number of AGW believers in the U.S. will become negative in five years. ;-)
Is it serious?
The "very serious" group went from 44% to 35% between 2008 and 2009,
"not too serious" went from 13% to 15%, "not a problem" went from 11%
to 17%, the last two "largely unworried" groups combined went from 24%
to 32%.
GOP, DEM, IND: party lines
» Don't Stop Reading » (The Reference Frame)
Global Warming Isn’t The Worst Issue Facing Africa
Life
in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short reports Fiona
Kobusingye. “AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year according to
WHO (World Health Organization) reports. Lung infections cause 1.4
million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000.
Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an
additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy
slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.” (1)
She adds, “Yet Africans are told the biggest threat they face is global
warming. Conferences, news stories, television programs, class lectures
and one-sided ‘dialogues’ repeat the claim endlessly. They are told
using oil and petrol, even burning wood and charcoal, will dangerously
overheat our planet, melt ice caps, flood coastal cities, and cause
storms, drought, disease and extinctions.” Africans are told climate
change threatens humanity more than all the diseases listed above.
Will Alexander of the University of Pretoria, South Africa, points out
that since the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 1988 not a single person in South Africa has died as a
result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from
poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease. He says, “How
dare those who call themselves scientists deliberately suppress this
information? How dare they ignore the suffering of all these people?
How dare they steadfastly refuse to participate in multidisciplinary
studies where their alarmist theories can be demonstrated to be without
foundation?” (2) (Jack Dini, Hawaii Reporter)
Smoke And Mirrors
It's
official. Rich countries continue to pollute more than ever, and this
is evident from the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) figures released by
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Developed countries
emitted 12.8 per cent more GHGe in 2007 than in 1990, the base year for
calculating emissions according to the Kyoto Protocol, despite many of
them agreeing to cut back emissions under the protocol's mandate. The
US's CO2 emissions have increased by 20 per cent in 17 years. Yet
India, with its track record of comparatively less pollution, is a
target for rich countries. It is accused of aggravating climate change
as an emerging economy. (Times of India)
'Climate change fight shouldn't hit
development' - Focus of India’s efforts will be targeted towards achieving time-bound outcomes related to energy efficiency.
Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh today asserted that developing countries
“cannot, and will not” compromise on development in the context of
climate change.
“The challenge before the developing
world is how to achieve our developmental goals while at the same time
minimising ecological costs. Our per capita consumption of primary
energy is less than one-fourth of the world average and our per capita
emission of CO2 is among the lowest in the world. Moreover, the energy
intensity of our output has been continuously declining in the last 30
years,” said Singh while addressing the New Delhi High Level Conference
on Climate Change here today.
In the run-up to the Copehnagen summit, India also asked rich nations
to make “serious” efforts to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions
to tolerable levels. The climate change summit in Copenhagen in
December is expected to deliberate and finalise a successor to the
Kyoto Protocol to tackle global warming.
“I have stated earlier that we stand committed to ensure that our per
capita carbon emissions will never exceed the average of the per capita
carbon emissions of developed countries. Equating GHG emissions across
nations on a per capita basis is the only just and fair basis for a
long-term global arrangement on climate change which is truly
equitable,” he reiterated. (Business Standard)
And just in case anyone didn't get it: Indian
emission will meet economic aspirations, says PM
In
the face of growing global pressure on limiting carbon dioxide
emission, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on Thursday said that Indian
emission will continue to rise to meet national economic aspirations.
(Deccan Herald)
A
little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly
The news today from the Pew Institute
tells us that many Americans are backing away from the predictions of
catastrophic climate change. This may be because many predictions
simply haven’t come true.
Most,
if not all, WUWT readers know Dr. James Hansen of GISS. He’s credited
with jump starting the debate in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony
before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft of that event here.

Readers might be tempted to think that I’m going to point out the discrepancies between the three different model scenarios that Dr. Hansen presented to
Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about
something else entirely.
Hansen's
3 model scenarios compared to temperature records from RSS (satellite)
and GISS (surface). Graphic: Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit
In Dr. Hansen’s case, he’s been living the life of a scientist in the media spotlight since, giving
thousands of interviews. He’s also taken on the role of activist during that time, getting
himself arrested this year for obstructing a public highway.
He
likely doesn’t remember this one interview he gave to a book author
approximately 20 years ago, but fortunately that author recounted the
interview on Salon.com. What is most interesting about this particular
Hansen interview is that he dispenses with the usual models and graphs,
and makes predictions about what will happen in 20 years to New York
City, right in his own neighborhood. Sea level figures prominently.
Here’s the interview. (WUWT)
Advanced Biofuels Will Stoke Global Warming: Study
LONDON/WASHINGTON
- A new generation of biofuels, meant to be a low-carbon alternative,
will on average emit more carbon dioxide than burning gasoline over the
next few decades, a study published in Science found on Thursday.
Governments and companies are pouring billions of research dollars into
advanced fuels made from wood and grass, meant to cut carbon emissions
compared with gasoline, and not compete with food as corn-based
biofuels do now.
But such advanced, "cellulosic" biofuels will actually lead to higher
carbon emissions than gasoline per unit of energy, averaged over the
2000-2030 time period, the study found. (Reuters)
Carbon advantage of biofuels may be overstated
The
world's policymakers and scientists have made a critical error in how
they count biofuels' contribution to human-generated greenhouse-gas
emissions, according to a paper published Thursday in the journal
Science.
Although the article addresses a wonkish subject -- how to measure the
environmental impact of energy sources such as ethanol and wood chips,
which absorb carbon as they grow but release it back into the
atmosphere when they're burned -- it has broad implications. The method
undercounts the global-warming contribution of some bioenergy crops,
the team of 13 researchers wrote, because it doesn't factor in what
sort of land-use changes might occur to produce them.
"We made an honest mistake within the scientific framing of the debate,
and we've got to correct it to make it right," said Steven P. Hamburg,
chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the
paper's authors.
When calculating the greenhouse-gas emissions limit, government
officials in the United States, Europe and elsewhere do not count the
carbon that biofuels release when they are burned. But carbon is
released when a producer clears and burns trees, even to grow a crop
destined for the biofuels market. Officials also established a legal
system that limits emissions from energy use but not from land-use
activities such as clearing forests.
In recent months, researchers have begun to worry that bioenergy crops
could replace the world's forests and savannahs on a huge scale unless
climate policies start to take full account of how these crops'
production affects greenhouse-gas concentrations. None of the major
climate regimes -- including the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union's
carbon market and the House-passed climate bill -- account for the
carbon released by changing land use for biofuels. (Juliet Eilperin,
Washington)
Study: Accounting error undermines climate change laws
An
important but fixable error in legal accounting rules used to measure
compliance with carbon limits for bioenergy could undermine efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging deforestation, according
to a new study by 13 prominent scientists and land use experts
published in the Oct. 23 issue of the journal Science.
The error affects the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union's Emissions
Trading System, and is written into a U.S. climate change bill, the
American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives in June. (Princeton)
They’d
Shoot Trees, Wouldn’t They? Climate Laws Encourage Deforestation, Scientists Say
The law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.
Global plans to tackle climate change, from the Kyoto Protocol to the
recently-passed Waxman-Markey bill, have a fatal flaw: They essentially
encourage large-scale deforestation, which pretty much undermines the
whole idea of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions in the first place.
That’s the argument from a new paper published in Science today,
written by Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and others. The
upshot? Clearing out forests to use the wood for bioenergy clearly has
an environmental cost, but that’s simply not accounted for in any of
the prevailing climate-change programs. Kyoto, the European
cap-and-trade plan, and the House climate bill all treat bioenergy as
carbon-neutral; nobody counts the effect of disappearing forests. (WSJ)