May 2011 Climate Change Summary Report

‘After Delays, Little Progress for UN Climate Fund’

May 2, 2011: Reuters reports: “Negotiators at a United Nations-sponsored summit on climate change reported little progress on Friday as they try to create a worldwide fund that will help poor nations adapt to new weather realities. A modest climate change agreement signed last year envisions a ‘Green Climate Fund’ that would parcel out $100 billion a year by 2020. … Negotiators laid the framework for a sweeping climate deal at the sixteenth such summit on the topic held in the Mexican resort city of Cancun in December. Now officials are desperate to fulfill those pledges and set the stage for a binding agreement to reverse climate change at the next such meeting planned for Durban, South Africa, in December. But progress on that comprehensive deal has been slow and labored. The first meeting to work on the Green Climate Fund, originally scheduled for mid-March, was postponed to this week in a typical delay. The two-day meeting involving 40 countries did not end with much concrete progress as tensions between rich donor countries, which often demand cumbersome oversight, and poor recipients have lingered. ‘Members stressed the need for efficiency and effectiveness through clear accountability,’ the UN panel tasked with climate change work said in a statement.”

‘When Green Fuel is Dirty’

May 4, 2011: From a Washington Examiner column by Timothy Carney: “Green energy subsidies, regulations, and mandates are very often corporate welfare boondoggles that enrich the well connected at the expense of the taxpayer, ratepayer, and small businessman. When I point out the special interest connections in ‘green policy,’ a typical liberal response is ‘who cares who’s getting rich if it helps the planet?’ But any time politicians are picking winners and losers in industry, we always should suspect that technologies and policies will be favored not for what best helps the planet but through cronyism. Also important when considering the sort of Big Ideas our politicians love, is unintended consequences. Sometimes what’s supposed to help the planet ends up hurting the planet. A prime example of ‘green policy’ hurting the environment: biomass.”

‘Let the Market Pay for Renewable Energy’

May 4, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Josh Prueher, CEO of Earl Energy: “Should the government provide subsidies to stimulate the development of renewable energy to help it compete with incumbent energy resources like oil, coal and natural gas? … In all cases, subsidies deny the market its proper role of directing capital. It’s important to note that the traditional energy industry also receives billions of dollars in government subsidies each year; perhaps it’s more effectively hidden from public scrutiny.  But there is good news for supporters of both renewable energy and free markets: There’s already a large and vibrant marketplace where the economic case for renewable energy is not only proven but a slam dunk. It’s called the off-grid market. … In fact, the off-grid market consists of some of the largest industrial enterprises on the planet, operating in remote and often extreme environments. … As a result, their energy costs are staggering. … While the off-grid market is small relative to the on-grid energy behemoth, it is of sufficient size and depth to justify strong competition, private investment and product development—without subsidy. The rationale for investing in off-grid energy development is three-fold. First, the existing diesel generation technology is woefully inefficient, adding cost to almost everything we pull from the ground or transport over water. Second, the specific technologies required for economical off-grid power—solar and wind generation, integrated energy storage, and intelligent microgrids—are important technical stepping stones toward a national system in which energy is produced and consumed on a small scale and in close proximity.  … Third, and perhaps most importantly for the future, one-quarter of the world’s population does not have access to electricity in their homes. … There’s an important free market for renewable energy located off-grid. We should let the market pay.”

‘Politics Cloud Common Sense on Energy’

May 5, 2011:  From a Town Hall column by Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President of the National Tax Payers Union: “While the nation struggles with gas prices hovering at $4 per gallon, our representatives in Washington are so busy pointing fingers at each other they have failed to take the necessary, prudent steps that would address the problem: chief among them, carefully allowing more domestic production to stabilize oil markets. The President, focused on his 2012 re-election campaign and nervous about upsetting a vocal portion of political allies in his base, is instead trying to blame the very energy companies whose production his policies are limiting. Others, including many Republicans (and a significant number of Democrats) are seeking to expand U.S. oil and gas development, and with it the chance for a robust, job-creating economic recovery. … The President’s budget (as well as legislation being crafted in Congress) would deny ‘dual capacity’ protection against double-taxation on oil and gas companies’ earnings from abroad, where they operate to secure energy resources in constant competition with other countries’ firms. …

Contrary to political spin, our oil and gas industry often bears the worst of this burden, averaging a 48 percent tax load as a share of profits (well above that of most sectors). The easiest way out of this mess is tax reform for all businesses. But singling out American oil and gas companies by removing their dual capacity shield, while leaving the rest of flawed tax system in place, would be a crippling blow to U.S. energy diversity. … Not only does the industry support 9.2 million American jobs, affordable energy is key to productivity gains for numerous goods and services. It likewise feeds approximately $100 million daily into federal and state government coffers through lease payments, royalties, and other taxes. Ironically, allowing this activity to grow provides a better long-term prospect for deficit reduction than taxing it into non-competitiveness. And there are other lesser-known benefits. A study into specific state pension plans to support the retirement of our nurses, teachers, fire fighters, and other public servants revealed that 3 to 5 percent of the assets were in oil and gas, earning between 9 and 12 percent returns while other types of investments were tanking. …

The Congressional Research Service recently indicated that the U.S. has more fossil fuel reserves than any other country in the world. Market forces from Middle East turmoil aside, our own flawed energy and tax policies have either cut off, slowed down, or threaten to slow down oil and gas development in the U.S. … Environmental Protection Agency regulations could also put upward pressure on fossil fuel prices, while new rulemaking attempts could halt the natural gas boom – one which could supply the U.S. with over a century of domestic fuel. … Committing to expanded production of our vast oil and gas resources, on the other hand, would send a message to calm markets, while benefiting the U.S. with more energy jobs, government revenue, and economic growth in the process.”

‘House Panel Questions Future of U.S. Biofuel Use’

May 6, 2011: The Detroit News reports: “A House committee questioned the slow development of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. … But the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 and this year had to ‘substantially reduce’ requirements because of ‘limited production capacity,’ said Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s office of air and radiation. … Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., questioned why more progress hasn’t been made on cellulosic ethanol. … At the same time, corn-based ethanol production and government subsidies have come under attack by some in Congress and others who argue that diverting so much corn into gas tanks raises food prices and feed prices for livestock.  Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., introduced a bill Wednesday that ‘would reduce significantly tax incentives for ethanol,’ they said. … Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, told the committee that ethanol adds $54 billion to the U.S. economy, $12 billion in tax revenue and helps support more than 400,000 jobs. … Others have criticized a tariff that keeps most Brazilian ethanol out of the U.S. and other efforts to boost the amount of biofuels in gas tanks. … Despite all of the efforts, the U.S. is almost totally dependent on oil. In 2009, 94 percent of all transportation energy came from oil, said U.S. Energy Information Administration deputy chief Howard Gruenspecht.  The agency has a very conservative outlook on the ramp up of plug-in electric vehicles and hybrids. By 2035, EIA predicts that hybrids will account for just 5 percent of all vehicles sold and plug-in hybrid electric and full electric vehicles will account for just 3 percent of all sales.”

‘Upcoming Studies May Back Natural Gas Role in Low Carbon Power’

May 9, 2011: Inside EPA reports: “Preliminary research appears likely to back the role of shale gas in reducing carbon emissions from power generation — in a rebuttal to a recent high-profile study suggesting it would be counterproductive — though the research could raise questions about the GHG benefits of natural gas in the transportation fleet, sources say. The findings, outlined in two upcoming papers from Carnegie Mellon researchers, could help natural gas proponents rebut claims that shale gas used in power generation would have a higher greenhouse gas footprint than coal power. … The first paper, a preliminary Carnegie Mellon lifecycle assessment of Marcellus shale gas submitted to Environmental Research Letters, concludes that shale gas has a smaller carbon footprint than coal when used to generate electricity, assuming no carbon sequestration on coal plants, according to a source familiar with the effort. The study was funded at least in part by Sierra Club, which generally supports natural gas generation over coal but which has also raised concern over the impact of natural gas development. The preliminary assessment wades into some of the same territory as the Cornell research by looking at the global warming potential of methane, under both commonly accepted methods for evaluating its long-term impact on the climate and a shorter time horizon that has the effect of magnifying the GHG effects from shale gas development. …

A second Carnegie Mellon paper submitted to Environmental Science & Technology takes a broader look at the lifecycle emissions from various natural gas uses. While the details are not yet released, a source says that the paper is likely to underscore that using natural gas for power generation is the best way to obtain greenhouse gas emission reductions using the fuel. However, in what may cause some concern for backers of natural gas vehicles, the study will raise questions on the ability of natural gas vehicles to offer significant GHG benefits compared to the conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel that they replace. … Meanwhile, sources say that another study less favorable to the natural gas sector is also in the works. The Post Carbon Institute is working on a report that will raise questions about the availability of sufficient natural gas supplies to substitute for coal in the power sector and oil in the transportation sector. The report will also include discussion of possibilities for capturing methane emissions, but it is unlikely to dispute the findings of the Cornell study that shale gas could approach that of coal, according to a knowledgeable source.”

Data: Biofuels produce more renewable energy than does wind power, 10-May-2011:
The biofuels industry produces 12 times more energy than the wind-power sector worldwide, according to this article. Ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel production totaled 29.7 billion gallons and accounted for 2.58 quadrillion British thermal units on a gross basis, writes Jim Lane. Wind-energy production was 0.126 quadrillion gross BTUs. BiofuelsDigest.com

IPCC: Renewables Key for Climate, World Energy Supply

May 10, 2011: AFP reports: “Renewable energy could meet nearly 80 percent of the world’s energy needs by mid-century and play a crucial role in fighting global warming, the UN’s climate scientists said Monday in a major report.  The 194-nation Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) said that renewable sources had grown rapidly, were widely competitive with fossil energies and, technically, had almost limitless potential. But cleaner energy still faces formidable barriers, and governments must boost its development and peel back fossil-fuel subsidies for that potential to be realised, the panel cautioned. … The thousand-page analysis, unveiled at a May 5-13 meeting of the IPCC, evaluates 164 development scenarios and is designed to guide decision-makers in government and business. … The price tag will be steep, though. Different projections put it at 1.4 to 5.1 trillion dollars for the coming decade, and another 1.5 to 7.2 trillion dollars for 2021-2030. But if the benefits of curbing global warming are factored in, Pachauri said, this may be a bargain. … A majority of the scenarios reviewed show a ‘substantial increase’ — ranging from three-to-20 fold — ‘in the deployment of renewable energy by 2030, 2050 and beyond.’ Clean energy’s share of future supply varied hugely across different forecasts, with the most conservative projecting a 15-percent share by mid-century and the most ambitious predicting it will cover three-quarters of all energy needs.”

‘House Democrats to Unveil Final Portion of Alternative Energy Bill’

May 11, 2011: The Hill reports: “House Democrats will release the final installments of a three-bill energy package Wednesday ahead of the expected passage of two GOP-sponsored drilling bills, a House Democratic aide said. One bill would codify the recommendations of the national oil spill commission; impose so-called ‘use it or lose it’ standards, which would level fees on oil companies that don’t move forward with production on their leases; and require lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. Another would provide a series of incentives for natural-gas and electric vehicles. The bills come a week after House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), unveiled the first bill in the package, which would eliminate oil industry tax breaks.”

‘D.C. Can Slow Rising Gas Prices’

May 12, 2010: From a Politico op-ed by U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA): “As gas prices across the United States approach four dollars a gallon, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that political agendas and the administration’s bureaucratic delays do not block efforts to lower energy costs and use our nation’s abundant natural resources. Increasing oil and gas production – both offshore and on –is essential to our energy future. We need to rely far more on hydraulic fracturing, a proven, safe technology.. We must also eliminate the excessive regulatory barriers to offshore drilling. … The U.S. has greater energy resources than any other nation on earth. … Yet these resources are being kept out of reach because of an intense regulatory bias and radical environmental activists — both in the administration and elsewhere. … The United States cannot afford to leave our domestic petroleum resources untapped. And we cannot rely upon foreign suppliers in a politically unstable world. … Economic hardships from rising energy prices are being felt across the country. … Congress, however, has an opportunity to change this and free up opportunities to explore and produce our own national resources; to create private sector jobs, and to address the costly bias against domestic energy production. The choice is not and has never been between technologies that lower energy usage and those that increase production. The United States needs both. By renewing our commitment to safe domestic oil and gas exploration and deploying new energy technologies that tap our nation’s vast natural resources we can obtain that long elusive goal of energy independence.”

National Research Council Report Stresses Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

May 13, 2011: The New York Times reports: “The nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the effects are already becoming serious and the need has become ‘pressing’ for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.  The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, did not endorse any specific legislative approach, but it did say that attaching some kind of price to emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would ideally be an essential component of any plan. … The report, ‘America’s Climate Choices,’ was ordered by Congress several years ago to offer ‘action-oriented advice’ on how the nation should be reacting to the potential consequences of climate change.  But the answer comes at a time when efforts to adopt a climate-change policy have stalled in Washington, with many of the Republicans who control the House expressing open skepticism about the science of climate change. Other legislators, including some Democrats, worry that any new law would translate into higher energy prices and hurt the economy.  Not only is the science behind the climate-change forecast solid, the report found, but the risks to future generations from further inaction are profound. Already, the report noted, sea level is rising in many American towns and the average United States air temperature has increased by two degrees in the last 50 years. … While no one knows the exact shape of the risks, Dr. Carnesale said, we know that they are real enough to act on. And that they will be harder to act on as time passes. …

But Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, who has been leading the charge against further regulating carbon emissions, swiftly dismissed the council’s findings in an interview Thursday. … Although the report characterizes climate change as a problem that urgently needs attention, it stops short of making highly specific policy prescriptions, leaving that to lawmakers. … The report outlined four areas that demanded immediate action by the federal government. … While stopping just short of recommending a carbon tax, the committee did praise its efficacy. … It also called on the federal government to play a much more active role in researching new technologies and in helping the nation adapt to the changes in the natural world that are already inevitable. … Finally, while this report was designed, in contrast to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be by Americans for Americans, the authors noted that climate change was a global problem and the nation had an obligation to remain engaged with the international community on possible solutions.”

Sen. Inhofe: ‘All Pain, No Gain’

May 17, 2011: From a USA Today op-ed by U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “Not too long ago, President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress proudly announced that America would lead the fight against global warming by passing a cap-and-trade bill. But despite overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2009, Democrats barely found the votes to get the proposal through the House, and Senate Democrats never even brought it up for a vote. The reason is simple. Cap-and-trade is designed to make the energy we use more expensive. Consider President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who said in 2008, ‘Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.’ That’s about $7 to $8 a gallon. What the Democrats have since learned is that the American public is more skeptical of the science of global warming than at anytime over the past decade. … While skepticism abounds, Americans are fully aware of the impact on their wallets. … What would be gained from higher gas prices and staggering taxes? Virtually nothing. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, appointed by President Obama, admitted before the Senate that the U.S. action on global warming would have no impact on global carbon emissions. In fact, as jobs went to places like India, China and Mexico, where they don’t have any emissions requirements, cap-and-trade would actually increase worldwide emissions. For the past 10 years, I have led the fight against the Democrats’ attack on affordable energy. This year, 64 senators voted to rein in the Obama administration as it attempts to push its cap-and-trade agenda through EPA regulations. In the end, as the hysteria of global warming continues to fade, so too will the cap-and-trade regime.”

‘The Children’s Crusade’                  

May 19, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “The Supreme Court seems to be on the verge of striking down the green legal doctrine that carbon is a ‘public nuisance’ under common law, but the same pressure groups are now bidding to revive the theory under another name. These cases are growing more frivolous by the day, and judicial punishments may be in order. This month the green lobby, led by an outfit called Our Children’s Trust, sued the federal government and 10 other states, with 40 more on the way. Much like public nuisance, the new claim is based on an obscure doctrine under common law known as the public trust, which dates to the Roman empire and protects property of communal value. Throughout history, that has mostly meant navigable waters or shorelines, and it has mostly been used to prevent states from converting coastal property to private use. Public trust law has never been applied to the atmosphere, despite some novel environmentalist attempts in the 1970s to use it for traditional air pollution. The greens aren’t suing to right a wrong or seek damages as in ordinary lawsuits, but rather they are demanding that the courts annex quintessentially political decisions. Anyway, ubiquitous carbon mixes evenly over the globe, and as a practical matter, Montana (one of the states being sued) can’t do anything to protect its ‘public trust’ any more than the U.S. can amid rising Chinese emissions. Our Children’s Trust has fielded kids to act as its plaintiff shields, such as the California minor who ‘has snorkeled several times’ and ‘due to these experiences, he values the aesthetic and material properties of nature.’ … Even the Supreme Court’s liberals were skeptical of this theory in AEP v. Connecticut—the decision is due next month—and little wonder: The only point is to harass industry and conduct a political campaign through the courts. The proper response to cases so lacking in legal justification is sanctions against the plaintiffs, including repaying the taxpayers dollars—also a public trust—that the government is wasting to fend them off.”

Targeting “Big Oil”

May 23, 2011: From a Houston Chronicle editorial: “Almost as if on cue, four-dollar gasoline has signaled the return of ‘Big Oil’ to the bold-faced headlines — and to the politicians’ cross-hairs. Their target is tax breaks favoring the nation’s biggest producers, even as other headlines speak of record profits. … This past week, those pushing for ending those tax breaks lost a key vote in the Senate. But no one believes the issue is going away soon. Outside of the oil patch, demonizing Big Oil is pretty good populist politics.  … From Houston, we see Big Oil through a different lens than most of the rest of the country. … For us, as we’ve noted many times, Big Oil has a human face – friends and neighbors who do the daily work of finding new supplies of oil, refining it and bringing it to market. … So we’re less inclined to go after Big Oil when times are good than some others are. … Instead of obsessing over Big Oil, why not focus more on the Big Picture on energy? By that, we mean creation of a thoughtful national energy policy designed to lead us out of dependence on foreign supplies from unreliable sources to energy independence, and founded on renewable sources. The Obama administration recently took a step in the right direction by signaling that it would increase domestic oil production by extending certain existing offshore leases and also hold more lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. It ought to be followed by others that lead to expanded drilling domestically, done with appropriate care for the environment. The argument against doing so because it would not bring an immediate return by bringing down high pump prices is utterly shortsighted. Each day that we delay tapping these readily available domestic resources, we extend our costly reliance on foreign sources and postpone the day of energy independence.  This country is only helpless in charting a secure energy future if we choose not to help ourselves. Come to think of it, we’d like to see that thought in a headline.

Waxman, Rush Ask for Another Climate Science Hearing

May 24, 2011: E&E News PM reports: “As their Republican colleagues continue to press U.S. EPA on the economic impacts of its greenhouse gas rules, House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats attempted today to bring the debate back to climate science by asking for another hearing on the subject. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the top Democrats on the full committee and the Energy and Power subcommittee, respectively, asked for a hearing to examine two new reports on the societal implications of a changing world climate. ‘While the conclusions reached in these reports reinforce what scientists have been telling us for years, they illustrate the remarkable scientific consensus on the issue and present constructive efforts to find solutions,’ said the two congressmen in their letter to Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.). … The two reports in question were released earlier this month by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the scientific arm of the Vatican, and by the National Academy of Sciences. Neither report included any new evidence of human-caused climate change, but they could pack a political punch. The Vatican-backed report in particular seems likely to undermine the argument made by some Republican members of the committee that a biblical faith does not support the idea that human activity can significantly influence global weather patterns. … The National Academy of Sciences released its report on May 12, which weighed the risks of a ‘business as usual’ scenario of continued reliance on high-carbon fuels. Requested by Congress in 2007, the report was compiled by a panel of scientists, analysts and policy experts who recommended that Congress take aggressive action to stem carbon emissions. The report drew from past research on the link between industrial greenhouse gas emissions and changing temperatures to find that science overwhelmingly supported the idea that humans are contributing to climate change. It noted that some uncertainties do exist due to the complexity of weather systems but said that was not ‘a reason for inaction.’ Meanwhile, GOP committee members continue to argue that EPA’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are not cost-effective. Upton and Whitfield sent EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a letter last week, asking her among other things whether EPA conducted a cost-benefit analysis before formulating its plan to phase in New Source Performance Standards for refineries and electric utilities.”

“Reports Tout Jobs and Other Benefits of Fuel Efficiency, Alternative Fuels”

May 26, 2010: ClimateWire reports: “A new report from a California nonprofit seeks to make the case that the stricter the fuel efficiency standards, the better off everyone will be economically. The study, commissioned by the group Next 10, found that if drivers save money on fuel, they will spend about 70 percent of that money on mostly local goods and services, spurring job creation in sectors further afield. It compared scenarios ranging from no vehicular emissions policy to a 43-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average by 2025, and found that as the level of regulation increased, the number of jobs created and gross state product did, as well. For the most optimistic scenario, in which California and the federal government opt for a 43 mpg standard and design improvements allow 5 percent more efficiency than expected, an additional 236,000 jobs would be created by 2025 compared to a no-action scenario. Report author David Roland-Holst, an adjunct professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley, said he expected less opposition to the joint California-federal fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025 due to be released in September. … Another report released yesterday looks at the potential for alternative fuels to replace petroleum. … By 2030, heavy-duty vehicles are expected to use biodiesel and renewable diesel for 12 percent of their fuel, up from essentially zero now. Light-duty vehicles will be 21 percent alternatively fueled, up from 6 percent in 2010, but much of the gain will be due to electric or hybrid vehicles, the report found. Author Shane Stephens-Romero, a Ph.D. candidate in environmental engineering at University of California, Irvine, said the report wasn’t motivated by any particular policy discussions. ‘Heavy-duty tends to be handled in fleets, and so there’s a scenario where a business or fleet owner could potentially uptake a new technology more quickly if given appropriate incentives or appropriate regulations were in place,’ he said. ‘You could see a lot of activity in the ports of Southern California, a push for cleaner technologies to deal with air quality challenges.”

New Jersey to Exit RGGI

May 27, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday that he plans to remove the state from a regional U.S. greenhouse-gas emission-reduction program. he nearly six-year-old program, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced, ‘Reggie’), includes 10 Northeastern states from Maine to Maryland and is the only operating U.S. cap-and-trade program. … Mr. Christie’s decision to exit RGGI follows efforts by other Republican governors to reverse their states’ participation in similar climate programs. Such programs have come under increasing pressure amid continued economic difficulties in many states and a lack of consensus in Washington over whether and to what extent the U.S. should establish a climate policy. … Since 2009, New Jersey has generated $113 million from sales of pollution allowances. Mr. Christie has tapped some of those funds to balance the state’s budget. Mr. Christie said the RGGI program doesn’t work, although he said he believes that humans play a part in climate change and that he is committed to reducing pollution. The RGGI program ‘is a failure,’ Mr. Christie said at a press conference in Trenton, N.J. He added that New Jersey has met its greenhouse-gas emissions-reduction goals. It was unclear what affect, if any, New Jersey’s withdrawal from the program might have on the market for RGGI pollution allowances. … Some critics have pointed to Pennsylvania, which isn’t a member of RGGI, as being more business friendly and having lower electricity rates than New Jersey. Mr. Christie, however, suggested that the cost was nominal, and said that he didn’t want to ‘overplay’ the benefit that consumers would see on their utility bills after the state withdrew from the RGGI program.

The move to withdraw New Jersey from RGGI follows similar efforts by Republican Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Jan Brewer of Arizona to dial back their states’ participation in emissions-reduction programs. … California plans to launch a new cap-and-trade program next year as part of the state’s 2006 plan to combat climate change, which was established during the administration of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. A California court last week ordered state regulators to suspend activities related to the cap-and-trade program, pending revisions to the environmental review for the program. The state Air Resources Board, which oversees the state’s climate plan, said it was complying with the ruling and expected to start the cap-and-trade program next year.”

“Newt Gingrich Recalls ‘Global Cooling’”

May 31, 2011: Politico reported Friday: “Newt Gingrich doesn’t buy the established science of global warming, especially when there were warnings in the 1970s of a new Ice Age. ‘Now many of those scientists are still alive, and they were absolutely convinced,’ the GOP presidential contender said Wednesday during a campaign visit to Manchester, N.H. ‘I mean, if Al Gore had been able to in the 1970s, we would have been building huge furnaces to warm the planet against this inevitable coming Ice Age.’ The former House speaker warned of government overreaction to an issue that he suggested may just be a passing fad. … Conservatives are also hounding Gingrich over a 2008 television commercial he appeared in with Nancy Pelosi — on behalf of Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection — where the two sit on a love seat in front of the Capitol urging action on the issue. Gingrich says the ad was his way of engaging in debate with Democrats on the issue, but global warming skeptics still want an apology. While that’s not happened, Gingrich hasn’t shied away from taking on climate science during his presidential tour of early primary states. In New Hampshire, he said he’d like to see hearings on this month’s newest National Academy of Sciences report that found ‘climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.’ … Gingrich drew applause from the crowd in the room with his overall remarks, which were punctuated by what he said are his two lingering questions about climate change. ‘To what degree are we certain that we don’t have patterns we don’t understand yet, that may or may not involve human contributions?’ he said. ‘And the second question I’d ask, are we better off to think through — and nobody in the scientific community would even think this — are we better off to think through how to cope with it than we are to think through how to avoid it?’ he said.”