Climate Chance Legislation

Via Dave Roberts, the World Resources Institute's report on different pieces of climate change legislation in the pipeline that comes complete with this graphic representation (click for a bigger view):

As you can see, the best bill -- and the only one that can actually help stabilize the carbon situation -- is the Sanders-Boxer bill. Meaning that if a legislator who represents your state or district, or to whom you've given money or have any other sort of institutional tie to, is backing some other bill but not Sanders-Boxer, you have good reason to ask them why, if they're interested in doing something about climate change, they're not interested in signing onto a bill with a chance to succeed?

The good news, however, is that several more moderate bills have a similarly trajectory through 2020 or even 2030 so if the ultimate result (as seems likely) is for something more moderate than Sanders-Boxer to pass, the planet isn't doomed -- the law will just need to be amended down the road. But for a more moderate bill to pass, in practice, is going to require growing support for even more robust measures,

Comments

matt there's a typo in the post title.

Posted by anon | September 22, 2007 10:50 AM

Well, with Boxer and Waxman's names on the thing thats 2/3 of my congressional representation right there. Anyone no Feinstein's position?

Also, I thought Boxer was very effectively used on Curb Your Enthusiasm last Sunday.

Posted by UberMitch | September 22, 2007 10:52 AM

Climate Chance Legislation

And I was looking forward to a decision-theoretic analysis of responses to climate change.

Posted by RSA | September 22, 2007 10:53 AM

Here is my prediction as to the "Chance" of Congress ever passing any climate-change legislation that might possibly be perceived by the energy industry as having even the slightest "Chance" of reducing the profits of any American corporation:

Not A.

Posted by James Gary | September 22, 2007 11:15 AM

The sad thing is that even if one of the better bills gets passed, industry will fight like hell to water it down and get around the regulations. Climate change is barely on the radar screen in the elections. The chances of anything actually getting down is slim.

Posted by Erik | September 22, 2007 11:53 AM

The best we can do is to hope that climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the low end of predictions.

Really. We don't stand a chance of implementing a useful energy policy.

Sorry,grandchildren. It just a useful measure of the limits to the behavior of huge numbers of people. Think of it like "the planet has AIDS".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 22, 2007 1:50 PM

The chart is a joke, of course. Even ignoring the fact that you can't reliably project actual changes in emissions from the text of a bill, especially over such a long period of time, the vast majority of CO2 emissions are produced outside the United States, and that share will continue to grow as the developing world industrializes. Let me know when China and India agree to be bound by climate legislation passed in Washington.

Posted by Mixner | September 22, 2007 2:35 PM

Has anybody read their proposals (or the Word Resource Institute report?)???? Here the candidates define the sectors of their coverage:

Kerry-Snowe
Does not define what sectors or
entities will be regulated. EPA is
required to achieve emissions
reductions on par with reducing all
U.S. GHG emissions in
accordance with stated targets and
timetables.

Sanders-Boxer
Does not define what sectors or
entities will be regulated. EPA is
required to achieve emissions
reductions on par with reducing all
U.S. GHG emissions in
accordance with stated targets and
timetables.

Lieberman-McCain
Emissions from the electric power,
transportation, industrial and
commercial sectors

Olver-Gilchrest
Emissions from the electric power,
transportation, industrial and
commercial sectors

Bingaman-Specter
Petroleum refineries, natural gas
processors, facilities that use more
than 5,000 tons of coal per year,
aluminum smelters, manufacturers
of adipic or nitric acid,
hdrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur
hexafluoride or nitrous oxide

Lieberman-Warner
Emissions from the electric power,
transportation and industrial
sectors

I mean... i mean... what do I mean? no matter what I'd type now - it would carry more meaning than ANY of the candidates' proposals? How DID the World Resource Institute compare their policies? Simply by looking at their "goals"? I have not seen any cost discussion??

We are comparing "names" without meaning? oh - I forgot - it's politics... I have a goal: "world peace and happiness" - how is that?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 22, 2007 3:00 PM

Mixner, why do you think you can't project changes in emissions from the text of the bill? The bills in question mandate specific reductions in CO2 emissions. The Kerry-Snowe bill, for example, "stipulates a declining cap, to cover 100 percent of U.S. emissions starting in 2010... that bring economy-wide emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020."
Also, while it is true that about 75% of CO2 emissions are produced outside the US, the US is the largest emitter, the largest economy, and leadership by the US would undoubtedly induce other countries to follow suit in reducing carbon emissions.
The issue of other countries' emissions is addressed in the report: "These curves represent reductions the U.S. would need to achieve in tandem with immediate and significant commitments from all industrialized countries and the eventual cooperation of all major developing country emitters...."
Furthermore, at least one of the bills covered by the report specifically addresses the carbon emissions of other countries. The Bingaman-Specter proposal "requires that, by 2030, if the five largest trading partners have enacted comparable policies, the President, based on findings from an interagency review, will recommend to Congress more stringent targets to reduce total... U.S. emissions at least 60 percent below 2006 levels."
But of course the whole "but China, but China" argument is just an excuse for doing nothing, because it is obviously nonsense that the right course of action for us is to wait for the Chinese to reduce their emissions. Even if we were not the largest emitter of CO2, it would still be the responsible thing to contribute (at least) our fair share of reduction.

Posted by dbeach | September 22, 2007 3:22 PM

Mixner, why do you think you can't project changes in emissions from the text of the bill? The bills in question mandate specific reductions in CO2 emissions. The Kerry-Snowe bill, for example, "stipulates a declining cap, to cover 100 percent of U.S. emissions starting in 2010... that bring economy-wide emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020."

I suggest you read the list of assumptions given by the WRI in its report, all of which are highly questionable. Kerry-Snowe is the only bill that explicitly applies to 100% of emissions, according the language of the report. All the others cover only certain sectors. No one can reasonably predict how much CO2 each sector will produce even a decade from now, let alone in 2050. And no one knows how feasible it would be to enforce "mandatory" caps, assuming the political will to do so is present for the next 40 years. There is just so much uncertainty surrounding the actual meaning of the language of each bill and how that language will translate into actual, real-world changes in emissions it's laughable. At best it amounts to an educated guess, and even that guess applies only to the small fraction of total emissions that come from the U.S.

Also, while it is true that about 75% of CO2 emissions are produced outside the US, the US is the largest emitter, the largest economy, and leadership by the US would undoubtedly induce other countries to follow suit in reducing carbon emissions.

Oh please. "Undoubtedly?" Do please explain to me how you have concluded that China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and other rapidly-industrializing nations with large populations (2.5 billion just for India and China) will "undoubtedly" obey a climate change law passed by the U.S. congress. Again, laughable.

But of course the whole "but China, but China" argument is just an excuse for doing nothing,

No, it's not an "excuse" for anything, but it is one of a number of reasons why projections of this kind are essentially worthless. We have no idea how much CO2 China will be emitting ten or twenty or fifty years from now. Ditto for the rest of the world. It depends on so many unknowns, from the rate of population growth to the state of the world economy to the political sentiments of billions of people in other countries.

Posted by Mixner | September 22, 2007 3:54 PM

....leadership by the US would undoubtedly induce other countries to follow suit in reducing carbon emissions.

Right after leadership by the US in porcine genetic engineering successfully produces a breed of flying pigs.

Posted by James Gary | September 22, 2007 3:56 PM

"As you can see, the best bill -- and the only one that can actually help stabilize the carbon situation -- is the Sanders-Boxer bill."-M. Y.

This a good example of sophistical cost-free economics. Yglesias looks only at the poential benefits of the bill and not at all at its costs. But the costs would be significant and any reasonable evaluation of a bill would entail a rigorous cost-benefit analyisis.

And this bill would certainly fail such an analysis because there are far better ways to reduce carbon emissions. Harvard's Greg Mankiw wrote an excellent article
in the New York Times recently arguing for a carbon tax coupled with reductions in payroll taxes. That's a much better idea than the Boxer/Obama/Sanders mandates--at least to those of us who care about the economic (as well as environmental) consequences of American policy.

Posted by Isocrates | September 22, 2007 4:41 PM

"Leadership" by the US need not (and should not) be confined to passing laws that reduce our own emissions. Diplomatic efforts in this regard might bear fruit. We could provide aid to other countries to help them implement technologies that would slow the growth of their emissions. If it came down to it, the US could slap some sort of punitive tariffs on the imports of countries that refused to reduce their CO2 emissions (WTO, I know, but the threat would still be effective). The idea that the US has no influence over what other countries do on this issue is "laughable."

In the meantime, US inaction serves as a convenient excuse for China and India to keep building coal-fired power plants.

Posted by dbeach | September 22, 2007 4:50 PM

Mixner

Actually - we can build scenarios for global C02 production and other ecological footprint variables (which are equally important compared to C02.. water anybody?)

The WWF is publishing the Living Planet Report annually and works with some reasonable models - as does the World Watch Institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United Nations and many Universities.

We also know that there will always be a mix of different energy types in place but that we will /want to go through a transition to greener sources.

A tax can achieve this by making polluting sources more expensive compared to greener ones. But it might be that we can achieve this without a tax better? Cutting CO2 subsidies for example? Or making greener sources cheaper compared to pollutants via a shift in spending? I believe this can be controlled and calculated for better and in a more direct manner than inexplicit approaches (aka taxing oil and hoping that this will be fastest bath to oil-independence)?

For example - a tax on coal would increase the end-user retail price only marginally. A direct subsidy on solar would half the price of solar with the same amount of money.

And regarding China.. the same applies. China will switch away from oil because of Mr Zhengrong Shi and not because of an US tax on CO2?

Without understanding the economics of energy distribution (via the grid) and the whole life cycle of many of our consumption products - putting a tax on certain sectors alone will not translate into the best (and cheapest) results?
Pushing known & proven as well as new green technologies will!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 22, 2007 4:56 PM

Yes, Isocrates, I think the consensus among economists and others who have examined this issue is that the carbon tax would be more effective than cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, politicians seem to regard the idea as radioactive, even in the context of a revenue-neutral solution like Mankiw's. Perhaps Mr. Mankiw could convince his former boss, George W. Bush, to endorse this concept. Oh, right, that's not going to happen. In that case, then, we have various cap-and-trade proposals.

I can wish and wish that a politician would propose phasing out payroll taxes and phasing in a carbon tax -- it's a great idea -- but what's that they say about wishes and horses?

Posted by dbeach | September 22, 2007 5:10 PM

dbeach,

I didn't say the idea that we have no influence over other countries is laughable. I said your idea that other countries would "undoubtedly" follow suit in reducing carbon emissions in line with a U.S. climate change law is laughable.

I'm not suggesting we do nothing. I am suggesting that whatever policy we do adopt should be based on serious, honest, realistic scientific, political and economic analysis, not wishful thinking. I would take the WRI projection more seriously if instead of projecting a single end-point value for each proposed bill, it instead projected a plausible range of values and probabilities under certain scenarious (like the IPCC scenarios). That would at least provider a sounder basis for a serious cost-benefit analysis of each proposal.

Another thing that really bugs me about liberal discussions of climate change policy is that they tend to focus obsessively on mitigation (and specifically on reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and pay relatively little attention to adaptation. I am persuaded that we do need to make strong efforts to mitigate global warming but I think there is also a huge role for adaptation. For many projected effects of global warming--rising sea levels, changing agricultural conditions, changing disease patterns, etc.--it may well be that adapting to the effect is a more cost-effective response than trying to prevent it from happening, or at least that the mitigation-adaptation balance should be tilted more towards adaptation.

Posted by Mixner | September 22, 2007 5:51 PM

Mixter

I agree with the first half of your last post and also with some of the second but I would like to add something to the following:

"it may well be that adapting to the effect is a more cost-effective response than trying to prevent it from happening, or at least that the mitigation-adaptation balance should be tilted more towards adaptation."

at this stage we should try to prevent as much as possible (especially reducing emissions overall). you sounded as if you understood the costs of uncertainty in this respect. Call it ecological inflation. A little is ok but hyper-inflation leads us nowhere. In the case of global warming or better, global ecological distraction, we cannot fully recover from a recession. Certain species that may be act as pillars for the ecosystems could vanish for good (millions of years of evolution gone).

The last time we faced such a species loss as we do today (one of the key indicators of healthy ecological accounting) was 60 million years ago. The resulting climate change was more than one could "adapt to".

The good news is that in many areas - prevention and adoption are the same. Oil prices rise due to lack of resources, the grid needs an overhaul due to old age and greener, local, alternatives become economically viable.

I do not believe therefore that the key issue is: "mitigation vs adaptation" but rather "tax vs spending" and on "what" (or better - the right mix of it).

It would be dangerous not to have a drastic reduction in emissions as a real and primary goal?!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 22, 2007 7:29 PM

Hugo,

Phrases like "as much as possible" aren't very helpful. Public policy is all about costs and benefits. It would be foolish to reduce GHG emissions "as much as possible" if that would be ruinously expensive and a lesser degree of reduction would produce almost as much benefit at much lower cost. And the word "possible" is so vague in this context anyway it doesn't provide any meaningful guidance. The degree of reduction in GHG emissions that is "possible" will vary greatly depending on things like population and economic growth. If we instituted draconian population control policies, or draconian policies to slow industrialization and economic growth, we could probably achieve GHG reductions much greater than we could under more moderate policies. But that doesn't mean we should. The social costs of those draconian policies would probably greatly outweigh the benefits of the additional degree of reduction in GHG emissions they would make possible. So let's avoid phrases like "as much as possible" and "do everything we can" and focus instead on the real questions of the cost/benefit mix of different kinds of policy response.

Posted by Mixner | September 22, 2007 8:48 PM

"it may well be that adapting to the effect is a more cost-effective response than trying to prevent it from happening.."

it may well be...

thank you for your elaborate arguments!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 22, 2007 8:56 PM

Mixner is right.

World C02 concentrations depend, of course, not on American emissions but on world emissions. No bill passed in congress can have that kind of effect on world concentrations without a lot of highly dubious assumptions about how all the other countries are going to react.

My view is that as long as there is oil and coal that is cheap to get out of the ground and useful, somebody is probably going to burn it. We just don't have the international political/legal institutions to do much about this right now. Our best hope is probably to develop cheap alternative energy sources, or to find other technologies that can sequester carbon or combat warming directly.

Posted by ed | September 22, 2007 10:27 PM

Re: The last time we faced such a species loss as we do today (one of the key indicators of healthy ecological accounting) was 60 million years ago. The resulting climate change was more than one could "adapt to".

I don't think we should confuse the problems of climate change and species loss. The latter is happening quite indepependent of global warming and would be a major problem no matter what was happening with the climate. And for a major episode of climate change (warming even) you certainly don't need to go back 60 million years: something quite extreme in that regard happened just 11,000 years when the Ice Age abruptly ended.

Posted by JonF | September 22, 2007 11:27 PM

OK Mixner, first of all, I certainly never meant to imply that other countries would follow the letter of some US climate change law, merely that if the US were to pass such a law and then began an aggressive diplomatic campaign to do something similar, I think it would be shocking if most countries did not in fact take significant steps to curb their carbon emissions.

On the adaptation point, you're right to an extent, but keep in mind that if we are able to stabilize CO2 levels it will likely be towards the top end of that 450-550 ppm range these folks are talking about. 550 ppm is approximately 50% higher than current levels, and it will take a significant effort to hold the increase to that. At 550 ppm, we'd probably still see significant sea level increases and other warming effects that would necessitate a lot of expensive "adaptation."

Other scenarios involve atmospheric carbon levels exploding over 1000 ppm by 2100. We don't know for sure what the effect of that would be, but it is not out of the realm of possibility (given the sort of feedback loop where higher temperatures beget higher CO2 levels) that we could make the planet hot enough that large portions of it would be more or less uninhabitable. We really need to avoid that, so some level of mitigation is a must before we can get to the point of making cost-benefit analysis type choices between mitigation and adaptation. We're surely going to end up doing both, but we have to do at least enough mitigation that adaptation is possible.

Posted by dbeach | September 23, 2007 3:55 AM

JonF

I don't think we should confuse the problems of climate change and species loss. The latter is happening quite indepependent of global warming and would be a major problem no matter what was happening with the climate. And for a major episode of climate change (warming even) you certainly don't need to go back 60 million years: something quite extreme in that regard happened just 11,000 years when the Ice Age abruptly ended.

Actually the two ARE related as E O Wilson states but have different time implications. The fact that we are facing a major species extinction confirms that we are dealing with MORE than a simple ice age here. During the ice age - the climate changed naturally and many animal species had time to "adopt" like mixter has suggested.

It was a different situation all together 60 million years ago. There is a difference between a bad business cycle, a recession and a bankruptcy! When certain ecological pillar species die out - there is a change in KIND and not DEGREE! The last ice age was a change in degree only!

We are facing an ecological bankruptcy if we are not careful. All the measures that we could take to avoid species loss are also those that avoid global climate change. Over use of land for pasture - depletion of water due to livestock - depletion of fish populations due to overfishing.. these are all related to climate change as well. No forests no C02 conversion, the same with healthy sea ecosystems and fresh water reserves, etc.

In other words - in the ecological accounting world - species loss is a key indicator of balance sheets - also when looking at the climate.

"diabetes II" we can reverse and cure - but once we reach "diabetes I" there is no going back for a long long time..

I stress this because whenever I hear "let us adjust and adopt and treat" rather than "prevent and avoid" - I am wondering if people have grasped what is at stake here? what we destroy today is irrecoverable. What were Jack Sparrows words: "It is not that the world is becoming smaller.. there is just less in it!"

I am sure nobody would dare to call oneself a "conservative" without carrying about its meaning? How much is conversation worth? How much is your way of life worth to you? One thing is CERTAIN - the threat from ourselves via environmental destruction is bigger than that from terrorist.

We know how much the war was worth to us.. protecting us from an ecological defeat should be worth at least 10 times more.. as the potential and certain dangers are 100 times more horrific?

Or how much is our way of life worth to us compared to pouring $20 billion annually in tax money into the hand of a few rich people? Much more than that - right?

If you know my posts here - then you know that I am among the few who try to steer the discussion towards a cost-benefit analysis of different policy options. I discussed "taxing vs spending" and the "international" aspect.

But I cannot take such a discussion seriously when people criticize the politician's programs for being to vague and then making arguments themselves that are even MORE vague... "it may well be.." I feel as if I have witnessed a troll in disguise - who just wants to say something, criticize something, for the sake of it..?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 23, 2007 2:43 PM

dbeach,

As I said before, I agree that we should make strong efforts at mitigation. But how strong, how much they will cost, how scientically and politically feasible different mitigation strategies will be, how much GHG mitigation is needed to prevent a given amount of additional warming, and the precise nature and geographical distribution of the effects of a given level of warming--these are all very much open questions. As is the proper balance between mitigation and adaptation. For example, we may well get more bang for the buck by spending X billion dollars on fortifying coastal defenses against flooding due to a rise in sea levels than by devoting that same amount of money to trying to prevent the rise from occurring in the first place. The big risk of a policy focused disproportionately on mitigation is that it will produce little benefit at great cost. The money might be better spent on preparing for and adapting to a warmer world, rather than a largely ineffective effort to prevent it.

Frankly, I think the prospects of significantly slowing "business-as-usual" projections of fossil fuel consumption are pretty slim. There are no credible large-scale alternatives to oil, coal and gas at the global level, and are not likely to be any for decades at least. The developing world will continue to industrialize rapidly and demand more and more energy from fossil fuel sources. Conservation and energy efficiency improvements are laudable, but realistically they will be swamped by these other effects.

I also take a very dim view of "it is not out of the realm of possibility" type statements. All sorts of global catastrophes are "not out of the realm of possibility." A massive asteroid impact. Nuclear war. A global plague of some deadly new kind of infectious disease. Massive volcanism. The important questions have to do with the magnitude of the risk and the magnitude and nature of the consequences if the event happens, as best we can assess those things. Simply asserting that terrible outcome X is possible if we don't take action Y isn't very helpful in deciding whether action Y is actually justified.

Posted by Mixner | September 23, 2007 3:32 PM

On one hand - I am glad that people like Mixner exist. If everybody would see change as a business opportunity - then the margins would be diminished for those who think "solution" and not "problem".

Mixner sounds like a copper line teleco who believes that the developing countries would deploy copper before they switch to wireless?

Further - Mixner assumes the best for nature (will not change much) and the worst for people (will not change at all)?

I see the world differently - judging from what has happened last century... that is ok. We will all interpret the daily news differently. We will talk more than we will think and read...

Either way here some afterthoughts:

As is the proper balance between mitigation and adaptation. For example, we may well get more bang for the buck by spending X billion dollars on fortifying coastal defenses against flooding due to a rise in sea levels than by devoting that same amount of money to trying to prevent the rise from occurring in the first place.

Yes.. we may. but that is not even the point? The point is that higher sea levels are doing more than just converting cities into Venice! They would just one of many symptoms. Your solution sounds like "applying makeup on the strange new spots"???

Frankly, I think the prospects of significantly slowing "business-as-usual" projections of fossil fuel consumption are pretty slim. There are no credible large-scale alternatives to oil, coal and gas at the global level, and are not likely to be any for decades at least.

Ehm.. oil.. is.. running.. out.. ??????? hellooo? and what if there ARE large-scale alternatives?? on other boards people mention nuclear???? which is cheap and emission free?

I also take a very dim view of "it is not out of the realm of possibility" type statements. All sorts of global catastrophes are "not out of the realm of possibility." A massive asteroid impact. Nuclear war. A global plague of some deadly new kind of infectious disease. Massive volcanism. The important questions have to do with the magnitude of the risk and the magnitude and nature of the consequences if the event happens, as best we can assess those things. Simply asserting that terrible outcome X is possible if we don't take action Y isn't very helpful in deciding whether action Y is actually justified.

Oh my god.. you are right! you are so right! how could we have missed that during our Risk Assessment? With your permission - can I email this to some Ivy League universities, the UN and other think tanks? They must have ignored that aspect completely?

I remember when they did cancer research and did not account for smoking! I could not believe it myself...

Mixner, with all due respect, but do you have "higher" education?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 23, 2007 3:58 PM

Hugo,

Not much substance in your latest missive. Let me see if I can extract some semi-serious comments from your rambling...

Yes.. we may. but that is not even the point?

Of course it is. It's an example of a potential effect of global warming for which a response focused on adaptation may be more cost-effective than a response focused on prevention.

The point is that higher sea levels are doing more than just converting cities into Venice!

What else are they doing? List the effects, and let's examine them. Of course, "converting cities into Venice" is a typical example of global warming hyperbole.

Ehm.. oil.. is.. running.. out.. ??????? hellooo?

Fossil fuel reserves are clearly not going to run out within the period during which we need to respond to global warming in some way, so this comment isn't terribly relevant. Proven reserves of coal, oil and gas are sufficient to satisfy the huge increase in demand for energy that will likely come from China, India and other rapidly-industrializing countries in the developing world with populations in the hundreds of millions.

and what if there ARE large-scale alternatives?? on other boards people mention nuclear???? which is cheap and emission free?

In principle, we could substitute a large amount of the energy currently produced from fossil fuels with nuclear energy using existing technology. But the political and environmental handicaps to such a huge growth in the use of nuclear power are enormous. There will probably be some growth in the use of nuclear power in the developing world (with all the attendant adverse environmental and security implications of the additional radioactive waste it will produce), but there seems little prospect of any major change in policy in the developed world.

And what else is there? Renewables aren't remotely competitive as a large-scale replacement for fossil fuel, and are not likely to be for decades at least.

Posted by Mixner | September 23, 2007 6:32 PM

Hugo,

We will all interpret the daily news differently.

I'm not sure how you're "interpreting" the article you linked to, but it doesn't contain much that is relevant to the prospects of solar energy as a large-scale replacement for fossil fuel. Try this pessimisstic piece, from the New York Times.

To summarize: Last year, solar energy contributed less than 0.01% of the nation's electricity supply. That's one ten-thousandth.

The head of renewable energy at the Energy Department predicts that even 25 years from now, solar energy will contribute "at best" 2 or 3%.

Scientists say that to make solar energy competitive will require a significant technological breakthrough that isn't expected any time soon.

As one scientist put it, solar panels basically have to become as cheap as paint or carpet to be competitive.

Remember what I said about being honest and realistic rather than engaging in wishful thinking?

Posted by Mixner | September 23, 2007 7:08 PM

Though humanities CO2 contribution is a serious problem, it is only 20% responsible for the rapid rate of the earth's melting ice. The major contributor within the aquatic structure is due to the reversing of the natural direction of conduction being generated by humanities massive low level thermal contribution having been accumulating at an increasing rate over time within the upper reaches of the DOW, colder 'deep ocean waters. ‘It is that accumulation that is spilling over into these colder regions and being vented upwards through the colder surface waters there. This is an unnatural event that increases the rate at which ice melts by as much as 95% all by itself! Without even having to generate a detectable temperature rise. Controlled experimentation supports these findings.

Posted by Randall DeWitt | October 4, 2007 7:15 PM