Some Like It Hot

George W. Bush ran for the presidency the first time as a “compassionate conservative”. The program emphasized community over profit and riches. “Family, church and neighborhood” were more important than the market place. But as the administration progressed Bush still emphasized repeatedly the above concepts but the compassionate conservative gradually disappeared and instead we found his administration destroying the forests, polluting the air and poisoning the waterways. It was a disturbing example of “bait and switch”. And Americans fell for it. Of course, more than half of the country knew Bush was no environmentalist but no one anticipated that in the four years of his first term he would break environmental regulations that had been in force for 100 years originating first with Teddy Roosevelt.

According to Bush’s own pollster, Frank Lutz, the American people did not want Bush’s anti-environmental changes. So Lutz proposed to the administration that they change the wording when referring to environmental issues. For example, the “Healthy Forests Initiative” gave the forests back to the logging companies for “protection against wildfires”. Another example was “Clear Skies”, which allowed mercury and sulphur pollution at dangerous levels

Let’s look now at Bush and global warming. There is no way possible to ignore global warming. The final 10 years of the last century was the warmest in history. In Montana’s Glacial National Park there are only 35 glaciers left of the original 150. Arctic temperatures were the warmest in 400 years since 1990. Alaska is 5 degrees warmer than 30 years ago. In the last 40 years sea ice at the North Pole has decreased by 40%. And in the Antarctica temperatures have risen by 4 ½ degrees in the last 50 years. So Bush’s pollster advised him to stop referring to “global warming” but rather to use the term “climate change” because it has less emotion attached to its use. Also Bush has repeatedly stated that there is no scientific certainty supporting “global warming”. Lutz advised him to continue to emphasize that point publicly as a primary issue. Of course it isn’t true that there is no scientific basis for global warming. Scientists are convinced that green house gases, i.e. carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor in the atmosphere do raise the temperature of the planet. And CO2 emissions from power plants in America alone contribute 10% of the global emissions.

Bush doesn’t use the term global warming very often anymore and he has attacked the Kyoto Protocols which every nation in the world has signed except the U.S. and Russia. Kyoto required the signers to reduce greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990. As for Russia, off the north coast of Siberia, average temperatures have risen 5 degrees Celsius since 1970. This has caused the Arctic ice to shrink by 3%. There is now a channel of ice free water along the coast. Melting ice inland is exposing rock and dirt. Since the dirt is darker than ice, it absorbs more heat and raises temperatures more quickly. This in turn melts more ice and bares more soil, and the temperature rises more quickly. Therefore Siberia is warming much faster than other areas of the world. Not everyone is unhappy about this situation, particularly Mr. Putin. Warmer temperatures in Siberia is a definite plus for Russia. And it explains why he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement. Putin likes it hot.

Obviously not everyone is shocked by the frightening climate changes. Despite drought, famine, flooding and unsuccessful farming caused already by global warming, there are those in the north such as Russia that see the changes as an advantage. In Siberia there would be “longer growing seasons” and “milder winters” that would improve timber growth and farming. Particularly potato crops would increase by one third. An ice free northern sea route would make it possible for oil tankers to travel from Europe to Japan faster than through the Suez Canal.

Oil companies in Russia would benefit from warmer temperatures making it possible to drill more easily offshore in the Russian Arctic. There are billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas buried offshore. This could be reached at lower cost and at greater efficiency if there were thinner ice and less icebergs. Arctic oil will be of tremendous help to the Russian economy suffering from a serious lack of liquidity. Russia depends on its oil for a third of its revenue. As oil depletes in other areas Arctic oil will have to replace that depletion.

Unfortunately Russia produces 17% of all carbon emissions mainly because its factories are so obsolete making Russia number three in the export of carbon, the U.S. and China being first and second. The Russian economy still has not recovered from the economic catastrophe of the 1990’s when the government nearly collapsed. Therefore, saving the climate is not on the agenda when their economy cannot support its pensioners, veterans and soldiers. To reduce fossil fuel emissions would require hundreds of billions of rubles to replace their polluting industries and cut the use of energy. The negative impact on their GNP would be cataclysmic. In the U.S. the problem is similar in that any change in the use of energy could cost the U.S. “one percentage point of its GNP every year for the next century”. The Bush administration is, therefore, not enthusiastic about making that kind of change despite the fact that to burn a gallon of gas produces 5 pounds of carbon. By driving a car most Americans produce in a year a ton of carbon.

Up until 500 years ago green plants extracted from the atmosphere so much carbon dioxide that the level was very small, i.e. 270 parts per million (ppp). This kept the temperatures very low and thus lowered the “green house effect”. As we all learned in our high school biology class that plants capture and store carbon dioxide and then through a process called photosynthesis convert it into oxygen and carbohydrates. At that time the “carbon cycle” was roughly equal. The CO2 released by nature was absorbed by forests. In fact, it stayed a little ahead, i.e. nature released 210 billion tons of carbon dioxide and the forests and jungles took in 213 billion tons. Thus there was a “safety margin” of 3 billion tons. By the year 1500 ,however, things began to change. Because of the decrease in forests the plants ability to absorb CO2 decreased. Then with onset of the Industrial Revolution the burning of fossil fuels increased enormously. Over time CO2 emissions increased to 6.3 billion tons per year, twice what the planet can absorb to the point that carbon in the atmosphere has increased to 370 ppm today. And this, according to climate scientists, will continue to increase no matter what we do because “reabsorption can take centuries”. Scientists have maintained that the line should be held at 550 ppm. But it may not be possible to stay at that level since the carbon level is rising so fast. Above this level warming is extremely hazardous. Shorelines disappear, multiple hurricanes occur, as do floods, droughts and forest fires. Staying below 450 ppm would certainly help in that the destruction would be less. However, for that to occur would be unrealistic. Just to keep the line at 550 ppm would require the U.S. alone to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by the end of the century. And that’s with a much larger population and a bigger economy. As long as we continue to rely on fossil fuels environmentalists agree that it is impossible. At the moment it appears that we will hit the 550 ppm by 2050. We have four decades to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Let’s now travel from Russia across the Bering Sea to Alaska. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been an environmental issue for 2 decades. It is the home of huge herds of caribou, musk oxen, grizzlies and polar bears. But it also contains insignificant oil deposits that have become a political football. Since the world produces 75 million barrels of oil per day and the U.S. uses 20 million per day, the Arctic Refuge would give us possibly one million per day. Hardly a significant factor toward “energy independence”. And , of course , that amount would be used up fairly quickly. The Bush administration and the former Alaska Senator, Frank Murkowski, now Governor of Alaska, pressured Congress to pass an act that would allow drilling. The administration supported drilling because it could be a wedge toward allowing drilling in other restricted areas. In short, it would set a precedent. Murkowski as we shall see had other motives. However, a very important reason Congress has not passed any act to allow drilling is the cost. Domestic oil production whether in Alaska or off-shore costs between $5 and $7.50 per barrel, while in Saudi Arabia it costs $1.50. So the refusal to drill on domestic land has nothing to do with our dependence on foreign oil.

So who has been paying the lobbyists pressuring for Arctic oil? None other than the state of Alaska itself. The oil companies did not care. They were really more interested in the Caspian Sea deposits. It turns out that Alaska is the “last great Welfare State”. Alaska retains ½ of the royalties from the sale of oil produced on public lands. A percentage of this is distributed to each resident every year. In 2003 it amounted to $1107. This is in addition to no payment of state income tax or sales tax. No one wants to give up this largess. However, the Republicans do not have the votes in congress to despoil the refuge. At the moment it appears to be a dead issue.

References:
Pope, Carl. Strategic Ignorance. Sierra Club Books. 2004.
The New York Review. 6/10/04. Bill McKibben. The Real Climate Crisis.
Roberts, Paul. The End Of Oil. Mariner Books. 2005.