1. NASA Scientists predict impact of CO2 less than thought
Not surprisingly, this story has to be found in the British, not the U.S., press. According to the UK Register, a new NASA model is predicting less warming than originally thought — in fact, only 1.64 degrees (C) for a doubling of CO2.
According to the scientists behind the model, other models have been underestimating or completely ignoring the negative feedback, i.e., cooling effect, of vegetation. As reported in the Register:
According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis — they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe — more carbon dioxide has important effects on them … green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don’t account for this at all, according to Bounoua.
2. Bakst explains JLF position on "tailoring rule"
In an op-ed published by The Charlotte Observer, Daren Bakst, director of regulatory studies for the John Locke Foundation, explained why JLF is opposing the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s approval of the federal EPA’s new regulations on greenhouse gases. The EPA has dubbed these new regs "the tailoring rule" because the agency had to "tailor" — that is, unilaterally change — existing law in order to get it to fit the regulation of CO2 emissions.
According to Bakst, the JLF is objecting to the rule because only the legislature should decide whether the state should regulate CO2, not an unelected agency; i.e., the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Also, any state regulations should be in effect only in so far as they are required by the feds.
An Observer editorial responded to Bakst’s op-ed that almost totally misunderstood Bakst’s major points. Bakst in turn responded to the editorial in the comment section of the paper and reproduced his response on The Locker Room, the JLF blog. It is important to read all three of these articles to get a full understanding of this rather complex issue.
3. Greenpeace founder changes his tune
Writing in The Vancouver Sun, Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, describes why he has now divorced himself from the organization and the wing of the environmental movement that it represents. According to Moore:
The truth is Greenpeace and I had divergent evolutions. I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human.
Moore has now written a book on his experience titled "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist."
Click here for the Environmental Update archive.
