If there is one pivotal date in the evolving saga of climate change it is probably a day in early June 1988, when Jim Hansen made his notorious claim during a US Senate hearing that:
“I’m 99% sure that human beings are contributing to climate change.”
Of course Hanson didn’t just fetch up in Washington on that very not day by chance, so it’s interesting to read an account of what happened from Timothy Wirth, the man who claims to have stage-managed the whole thing, quite literally.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
There are a lot of astonishing things about Wirht’s recollections, not least the way in which AGW alarmism dovetailed perfectly with an ongoing political scenario. Then there is the breathtakingly superficial and banal thinking that lies behind his narrative, and the oft forgotten fact that, although the US is portrayed as the villain that has retarded action on global warming, at the same time most of the pressure for action has originated from that country. Indeed it is arguable the forces that put climate change on the political map all those years ago, and has kept it there ever since have predominantly originated in America.
Anyway, Wirth seems inordinately proud of his antics on the morning before Hansen’s performance, and oblivious of the fact that when you have to tamper with an air conditioning system in order to persuade people that the earth is warming, then your evidence is pretty threadbare. But that’s the way it seems to be when science and politics meet.
TonyN
Thanks for reminding us of that infamous day. It surely encapsulated just how shallow many of our Politians have become over the last 30 years or so. I think it has gone hand in hand with the rise of 24 hour news and the fall in broadcast journalism standards as highlighted by Peter Sissions and Michael Burke who are two of the countries most respected news broadcasters.
Your observations about the US and how it is often portray as the bad boy of emissions is perceptive. I have never thought this as I worked until recently in the diesel engine industry and it had until recently been Europe that had always lagged. Indeed the standards in the US at present are still stricter than Europe who have played catch-up since the early 70’s when the California Air Resources Board first mandated a clean-up of Nitrous Oxides (NOx) from exhausts. NOx it be recalled is the primary cause of visible smog, and some parts of California had real geographical problems making it hard for these compounds to disperse. The EPA followed suit and in 1987 the first EPA standards for limiting NOx HC (un-burnt hydrocarbons) and CO were introduced for diesel engines.
It will also be recalled that Petrol engines in the US had been regulated starting in the early 70’s due to their tendency to produce excess CO, a deadly poison to all oxygen breathing life as well as NOx and HC compounds. This was the start of the Catalytic Converter. For diesel engines 1987 saw the very first use of the Full Authority Digital Engine Control introduced by Detroit Diesel. Yes that is 1987!!!
Cummins Engine Company started manufacturing Electronic engines for the US market in 1990 and in the UK in 1993 for UK truck manufactures for the Euro 1 emissions Limits. No European manufacturer had an electronic engine and indeed a manufacturer of Germanic origins was actively lobbying the EU to delay implementation of the Euro limits because the hit to fuel economy and performance they took to meet the standard made them uncompetitive. And guess what they were delayed. Oh the irony. The Cummins electronic engines were a big hit but unfortunately the customer base amongst UK truck builders was in decline due to the once great Leyland having to spend all its profits on propping up the car division and at this time in terminal decline.
Control of particulates was introduced in the US in 91 but not in Europe until 96 I believe. If they did exist earlier they were set at a level that was easy to meet. This is the formula; reduce NOx and you increase fuel burn plus increase particulate emissions. So you need to apply technology just to stand still on the parameters your customer is interested in; fuel consumption and durability.
All of the above was done in the interests of everybody. It was very technical work, and really interested no one other than those whose job it was. We are all reaping the benefits today as we have much cleaner air in our cities than for a very long time despite some of the nonsensical shenanigans about air quality that the EU go on about, and constant bleating from those who know nothing about dirty diesels and the “inefficiency” of the internal combustion engine, not to mention stories of big oil blocking development of “engines that run on water” etc etc.
All this time the US led the world in innovation and production. European companies had to do resort to mergers and acquisitions to remain viable. Others sort out joint ventures. A breakthrough in technology and manufacturing in the late 90’s allowed the scaling down of this technology into small engines and cars. This has seen the diesel take over as the preferred power plant in most European cars. Indeed only where low cost or extreme performance is required can the traditional petrol engine now compete. Even at Le Mans it can not compete.
Latterly though I detect that regulation has gone beyond what was intended and had now done what it always does when not enough attention is paid; creating monopolies and destroying completion which in turn will destroy innovation. This is apparent when you look at where companies are spending their research money. Useless areas such as Bio fuels spring to mind. Little real effort is given over to reducing fuel burn, as this would entail dialogue and consultation that is just not happening. Lots of EU money for “green” research though.
At this point I’ll return to how Europeans can come to the impression that the US is the bad boy of emissions. Prior to sometime about 2004/5 all we would hear from the press would be something about the West’s excesses in using up the planets resources and how we need to curb emissions. I had always listened with half an ear as the press is terrible when it comes to technical matters and curbing emission as far as I was concerned was under control and set to improve year on year. However it all change when the press started refereeing to CO2 as a pollutant, which it most definitely is NOT, and by adding up each countries CO2 output and equating this to actual pollution levels.
The public not being technical did not think to differentiate between real and perceived pollution and matters were not helped by all the visual aids that came out of Ed Miliband’s department showing black clouds of carbon. Suddenly the US has gone from Technological Leader to bad boy of the world. Despite the US supreme court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant, which is got to be the worst and most stupid thing ever to come out of the Supreme court, the impression has stuck that the US is the world’s worst polluter, and is blocking progress on the clean up. And as if the Europeans had never polluted anything.
In the past it would be the fact that we could not see anything; London pea-soupers or smog in LA that prompted action. But today it is not the general population calling for action due to a health issue, it is an elite, perhaps a ruling elite. And suddenly the worst aspect of European culture comes to the fore, its elitism. This is mostly a continental trait, although the “liberal left” (I hate these terms but it’s what most understand) in the UK can be elite with the best of them. I notice this as I’m not a European by birth, only by decent. This arrogance about being correct is slowly but surely destroying Europe.
Perhaps they see it as a chance to put the upstart colonials back in their place. Perhaps why Europe is going so hard on CO2 is that they now feel they are back in the driving seat where they belong. Are they jealous of past US ascendency in technology? I have to say though that in recent times it has been as if the US ruling class has colluded with their European colleagues to invite criticism as if this will somehow help their cause. They certainly know on both sides of the Atlantic how to pick losers. I don’t know, but what I do know is that I have probably written enough and it’s time for someone else to chime in.
PeterG (and TonyN)
Good analysis.
I agree with you that the US Supreme Court ruling on CO2 as a pollutant was not only totally unscientific, but also monumentally stupid.
But, as former Canadian PM, Pierre Trudeau said, “the essential ingredient of politics is timing”.
At that time, the “word” of the IPCC was as good as gold, so the scientifically inept legal minds simply accepted the IPCC warnings at face value.
Today the gold has tarnished and the outcome would have been different.
Will the US Supreme Court revisit the CO2 decision in light of all the new data out there?
Hardly likely.
But IMO public pressure will make it hard for the Obama administration to push forward aggressively with an indirect carbon tax through the EPA until next year’s election.
But if he gets re-elected next year, he will have four years to push his agenda (without too much worry about public reaction), even if the Democrats lose both houses of congress (whose on;y recourse would be to stop EPA funding for CO2 abatement).
How it plays out in Europe is anyone’s guess. In tiny Switzerland the “Liberal Greens” (i.e. “free market” greens, as opposed to the more socialistic-leaning “Green Party”) have won major victories in recent elections, riding on the wave of nuclear hysteria, following the Japanese disaster. But Switzerland does not have any coal-fired power plants, so this is not an issue.
It appears that anti-nuke forces have gained strength in Germany, as well, but it is hard to tell what the outcome will be when it becomes clear that the choice is either nuclear or fossil fuels (and CO2).
Both countries can simply sign long-term supply contracts with France’s EdF, of course, and everyone will be happy.
I am not in a position to comment on the situation in the UK, but it appears that the public got weary (and wary) of Gordon Brown’s calls for “urgent action before it’s too late to stop a climate catastrophe” and his successor is still playing more of a wishy-washy role, while trying to please everyone. Any comments?
Max
I’ve been wondering lately why the price of a less refined fuel is more expensive than a more “refined” fuel……….
Why does diesel fuel cost more than gasoline?
The main reason is rising global demand, but new environmental restrictions and higher federal taxes also are factors.
Historically, the price of diesel fuel at the pump actually has been higher than that of regular gasoline more often than it has been lower, as can be seen in this chart, which is based on weekly statistics from the federal Energy Information Administration.
Until recently the normal pattern has been for gasoline to cost more than diesel during the summer months, when families use their autos for vacation travel, and for diesel to cost more during the winter months, when demand for home heating oil rises. (Diesel and home heating oil are similar fuels, and the price of home heating oil tends to set a floor for diesel, which could be substituted if it became cheaper.)
Lately, however, that pattern has not held. Since September 2004 there have been few weeks when diesel wasn’t selling for more than gasoline – usually a lot more. For the most recent week, ending May 19, regular gasoline sold for a national average of $3.79 per gallon at the pump, while diesel was $4.50. The price spread reached a record 22.4 percent in favor of diesel during the week ending March 24, 2008. That’s a stark difference from the week of June 19, 2000, when diesel sold for 15.3 percent less than regular gasoline, the cheapest diesel has ever been relative to gasoline. So what’s going on?
Rising Demand
If any illegal price manipulation is going on we’ve seen no evidence of it. The EIA cites other factors, chiefly high “worldwide demand” not only in the U.S., but also in Europe, China and India. In Europe, for example, diesel-powered automobiles have been outselling those with gasoline engines in recent years. According to the European Union’s most recent economic report, diesel autos accounted for 53.3 percent of all new registrations in 2007, a huge increase from the 13.8 percent share recorded in 1990. That’s several million new diesel-consuming vehicles every year.
In India, the number of diesel-powered passenger vehicles is also rising rapidly. The number of all new passenger vehicles sold in India more than doubled in the past five years, according to statistics from the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, hitting more than 1.5 million during the most recent model year. Diesel accounts for more than 30 percent of new vehicles sold in India and is expected to hit 50 percent by 2010. Just this month, Ford India, a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, started production of diesel engines at a new engine assembly plant to turn out another 50,000 diesel engines a year for the local market. India’s leading environmental group, the Centre for Science and Environment, is fighting what it calls a “mad craze for diesel” in the country, so far with little effect.
In China especially, diesel consumption has been soaring as the economy booms. The country also is reported to be importing diesel fuel for stockpiling, to avoid any interruptions in power during the Olympics in August. Energy traders also say they foresee even more demand for diesel fuel in China to run heavy equipment and emergency generators in the wake of the recent earthquake.
“Cheap” Gasoline
EIA experts also say that the widening spread results in part from a slackening of demand for gasoline due to high prices and a soft economy. “While gasoline prices have increased this winter due to surging crude oil prices, they have not risen as high as they would have if year-on-year gasoline demand growth was unfolding at normal rates,” the EIA said in a report dated March 26. One analyst put it this way: “It’s not so much that diesel is expensive; it’s that gas is cheap.” He was speaking in relative terms, of course. If motorists were still increasing their consumption as rapidly as they had been until recently, gasoline prices would be even higher than they are, and the gap between gasoline and diesel prices would be smaller.
Environmental Restrictions
Another factor given by the EIA is the transition to ultra lower-sulfur diesel fuels in the United States. New Environmental Protection Agency standards for diesel fuel sulfur content took effect in 2006, requiring that the sulphur content of diesel be reduced drastically, from a maximum of 500 parts per million to no more than 15 parts per million for 80 percent of all diesel sold for road use. By December 1, 2010, that standard will apply to 100 percent of on-highway diesel fuel. New sulphur standards for off-highway diesel fuel (such as fuel for generators, construction machinery and marine use) began to be phased in last year. The added processing is an expensive proposition, and the cost ultimately must be reflected in the selling price of the fuel.
In 2001 the EIA estimated that the new standards for ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel would require refiners to invest from $6.3 billion to $9.3 billion, and they would increase highway diesel fuel prices by 6.5 to 10.7 cents per gallon between 2007 and 2011. The report also held out the possibility of even higher price spikes if the new regulation led to a production bottleneck.
Higher Taxes
Finally, higher federal taxes account for 6 cents per gallon of the price difference at the pump. Gasoline is taxed at 18.4 cents per gallon, and diesel at 24.4 cents per gallon. That’s been true for years and explains why diesel has sold for an average of 1.3 percent more than gasoline over the time period covered by the EIA’s figures. It does not explain why the spread has gotten so wide recently, however. Again, the main factor is demand.