Tuesday 10 November 2009
by: Joe Uehlein, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
While fewer and fewer people are willing to publicly deny the validity of global warming science, those who oppose action to protect the climate have taken up a new strategy: Denying that climate change will have a major impact on the US economy.
This denial is rejected by most economists who have studied climate change. In a survey of 144 top climate economists released November 4, 2009, by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, 84 percent agreed that "the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as described by leading scientific experts, create significant risks to important sectors of the United States and global economies." A majority stated that sectors that will be negatively affected include agriculture, fishing, forestry, insurance and health services.
But the profound negative economic impact of climate change is being largely ignored or denied in the current public policy debate. This denial threatens to have a significant effect on public policy. For example, testimony October 14, 2009, by Douglas W. Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, states, "Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate." He claims that "a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by 2100." He cites only two studies, one published in 2004; the other, which he describes as "the most comprehensive published study," was published in 2000, a decade before current research on the impacts of climate change.
This testimony completely ignores the British government's 700-page "Stern Review," widely regarded as the most definitive study so far of the economic impact of global warming, released on October 30, 2006, by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern. It states, "Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."
The CBO testimony ignores many studies that indicate significant negative effects of climate change on the US economy in the coming years. For example, a study by the University of Maryland found that "the costs of climate change rapidly exceed benefits and place major strains on public sector budgets, personal income and job security. Because of the economic costs of climate change, we conclude that delayed action (or inaction) on global climate change will likely be the most expensive policy option."
The CBO testimony ignores the June 16, 2009, government report "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US," issued by the US Global Change Research Program, which described economically devastating results of global warming already under way:
* More rain is already coming in very heavy events, and this is projected to increase across the nation. This would have impacts on transportation, agriculture, water quality, health, and more;
* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life, especially in cities;
* Warming will decrease demand for heating energy in winter and increase demand for cooling energy in summer. The latter will increase peak electricity demand in most regions;
* Water resources will be stressed in many regions. For example, snowpack is declining in the West, and there is an increasing probability of drought in the Southwest, while floods and water quality issues are likely to be more of a problem in most regions;
* In coastal communities, sea-level rise and storm surge will increase threats to homes and infrastructure including water, sewer, transportation and communication systems.
One small example of the way impacts of climate change are ignored: The CBO testimony states that the "medical care" sector will be "relatively insulated from climate effects." "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US" states on the contrary, "Climate change poses unique challenges to human health including heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases."
The CBO testimony also ignores a new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction." After reviewing effects on flooding, hurricane intensity, tourism, public health, water scarcity, shipping, agriculture, energy and infrastructure stress and wildfires, the study concludes, "If global warming emissions continue unabated, every region in the country will confront large costs from climate change in the form of damages to infrastructure, diminished public health, and threats to vital industries employing millions of Americans ... These projected costs of climate change do not include those that are critical but hard to quantify, such as costs stemming from changes to ecosystems and the need to relocate coastal communities."
The CBO testimony acknowledges that "there is a small possibility that even relatively modest warming could trigger abrupt and unforeseen effects during the 21st century that could result in large economic costs in the United States." It concludes, "The sources and nature of such abrupt changes, their likelihood, and their potential impacts remain very poorly understood." Thereafter, it largely disregards such effects as melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, epidemic diseases and extreme weather events, even though a great deal of scientific evidence has emerged on these threats in recent years.
Such denial leads to a deadly miscalculation of the economic cost of failure to counter global warming. The CBO acknowledges that "unchecked increases in greenhouse-gas emissions" would "probably reduce output over time, especially later in this century." However, the CBO concludes that the net effects on GDP of restricting emissions in the United States are likely to be negative over the next few decades. That conclusion results from a total failure to consider the devastating impact of climate change on the global and US economies, as revealed, for instance, in the "Stern Review."
How many epidemics and Katrinas will it take to expose the myth that the US economy is somehow exempt from the threats of climate change? And what terrible price will we pay if we shun the cost of climate protection, but not the far greater cost of climate change?
http://www.truthout.org/1110099
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Glenn Beck publicly shamed by satirist after losing domain battle
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 -- 7:33 pm
Fox News personality Glenn Beck has lost a battle for a Web domain which jokingly asked whether he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Isaac Eiland-Hall, the satirist behind glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com, thanked the pundit for his "assistance" in helping spread the rhetorical meme. Beck had filed a dispute with the World Intellectual Property Organization to gain control of the domain.
Beck's lawyers had argued their client's name was in fact a trademark, leaving Eiland-Hall in breach of intellectual property laws by using it in a domain. They also argued that the site, which is clearly labeled as satire, somehow led users to believe its information was factual.
The WIPO ruled against Beck on Friday.
National Public Radio added: "'Even a 'moron in a hurry,' read the decision, quoting Eiland-Hall's attorney, 'would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored, endorsed or was affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name.'"
In a letter to Beck that concluded with the username and password to access the domain, Eiland-Hall said:
"It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.
It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of the WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment. The purpose of the expressive freedoms embodied in the First Amendment is not to simply permit the greatest possible scope of expression, but also, in doing so, to also strive for excellence in the conveyance of ideas. Rather than choosing to strive for excellence and civic contribution, you simply pander to the fears and insecurities of your audience. And in the process, you do them, and all of us, a great deal of harm.
Shame on you Mr. Beck."
The WIPO clearly agreed in its ruling, calling the site a “satirical critique" of the public figure and “strongly protected” under long standing law safeguarding free speech.
"The panel [also] found that the URL is, in fact, confusingly similar to Beck's trademark and that people searching for legitimate information on Beck might stumble upon this site," PC Magazine noted.
Tech reporter Chloe Albanesius continued: "On the second point, however, the panel found that Eiland-Hall had an interest in the URL for political purposes, and that he did not benefit financially from Beck's name."
"Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations?" the site reads. "We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 – in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations."
The joke was originally created by comedian Gilbert Gottfried, who once performed a bit about fellow comedian Bob Saget raping and murdering a young girl.
"The idea is to force someone to explain away completely baseless charges made by insinuation alone; since Beck already has a reputation for doing this, the joke was supposed to give Beck a taste of his own medicine," explained Nate Anderson at Ars Technica.
"I imagine [the ruling] may further open a floodgate for the creation of similarly extreme sites should Beck remain as zeitgeisty and controversial as he has been these last few months," Mediaite writer Glynnis MacNicol suggested.
Glenn Beck did not actually rape and murder a young girl in 1990.
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/glenn-beck-publicly-shamed-satirist-losing-domain-battle/
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 -- 7:33 pm
Fox News personality Glenn Beck has lost a battle for a Web domain which jokingly asked whether he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Isaac Eiland-Hall, the satirist behind glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com, thanked the pundit for his "assistance" in helping spread the rhetorical meme. Beck had filed a dispute with the World Intellectual Property Organization to gain control of the domain.
Following his victory, the Web site's creator voluntarily turned the domain over to Beck and published an open letter publicly shaming the host for assaulting the First Amendment.
The Web site, which has now been taken offline, was a mockery of the right-wing entertainer's now-famous rhetorical style, asking questions and making hazy connections between many times unrelated people or events, then wondering why he has not gotten a denial of his often loosely-defined allegations.
A copy of the Web site now resides on GB1990.com. In addition to garnering widespread media coverage due to Beck's complaint, the site has also spawned a chain of copycat parodies.
Beck's lawyers had argued their client's name was in fact a trademark, leaving Eiland-Hall in breach of intellectual property laws by using it in a domain. They also argued that the site, which is clearly labeled as satire, somehow led users to believe its information was factual.
The WIPO ruled against Beck on Friday.
National Public Radio added: "'Even a 'moron in a hurry,' read the decision, quoting Eiland-Hall's attorney, 'would not likely conclude that Complainant sponsored, endorsed or was affiliated with the website addressed by the disputed domain name.'"
In a letter to Beck that concluded with the username and password to access the domain, Eiland-Hall said:
"It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.
It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of the WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment. The purpose of the expressive freedoms embodied in the First Amendment is not to simply permit the greatest possible scope of expression, but also, in doing so, to also strive for excellence in the conveyance of ideas. Rather than choosing to strive for excellence and civic contribution, you simply pander to the fears and insecurities of your audience. And in the process, you do them, and all of us, a great deal of harm.
Shame on you Mr. Beck."
The WIPO clearly agreed in its ruling, calling the site a “satirical critique" of the public figure and “strongly protected” under long standing law safeguarding free speech.
"The panel [also] found that the URL is, in fact, confusingly similar to Beck's trademark and that people searching for legitimate information on Beck might stumble upon this site," PC Magazine noted.
Tech reporter Chloe Albanesius continued: "On the second point, however, the panel found that Eiland-Hall had an interest in the URL for political purposes, and that he did not benefit financially from Beck's name."
"Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations?" the site reads. "We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 – in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations."
The joke was originally created by comedian Gilbert Gottfried, who once performed a bit about fellow comedian Bob Saget raping and murdering a young girl.
"The idea is to force someone to explain away completely baseless charges made by insinuation alone; since Beck already has a reputation for doing this, the joke was supposed to give Beck a taste of his own medicine," explained Nate Anderson at Ars Technica.
"I imagine [the ruling] may further open a floodgate for the creation of similarly extreme sites should Beck remain as zeitgeisty and controversial as he has been these last few months," Mediaite writer Glynnis MacNicol suggested.
Glenn Beck did not actually rape and murder a young girl in 1990.
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/glenn-beck-publicly-shamed-satirist-losing-domain-battle/
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
by Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk
Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."
The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.
The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.
John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.
He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.
"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.
The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.
But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.
Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.
A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".
But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."
by Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk
Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."
The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.
The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.
John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.
He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.
"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.
The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.
But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.
Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.
A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".
But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
