Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
With barely a whimper from the media, John Kerry is President Obama’s official nominee for Secretary of State. Mr. Kerry is the senior Senator from Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was the 2004 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Kerry has also been a long-time crusader in the effort to try to stop global warming.
With the possible exception of former Vice President Al Gore, Senator Kerry has been the most fervent climate hawk in the United States Congress. Kerry believes that “catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and—yes—even to American national security” and that global warming is man-made. He further states that “Once you accept the science, it’s clear that such massive environmental change will create dislocation, destruction, chaos, and conflict.”
Senator Kerry and his wife authored the 2008 book This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future, asking the question, “And what, in the face of so many powerful interests defending the status quo, are each of us willing to do, today and tomorrow, to force a change of course?”
True to his convictions, Kerry co-sponsored the American Power Act in 2010. The bill would have established a US cap-and-trade carbon trading system, but died in the Senate without a vote.
Senator Kerry parrots the “science” of man-made global warming with the starry-eyed ideology of a young environmentalist. After tornados killed 50 people in the Southeastern US in February 2008, Kerry appeared on MSNBC and concluded that man-made warming was to blame: “…this is related to the intensity of the storms that is related to the warming of Earth…the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense…” But a simple look at data from the National Climatic Data Center shows that strong tornado activity in the US has decreased since the 1970s.
In a 2009 interview with the Huffington Post, Mr. Kerry stated, “Nowhere is the connection between climate and security more direct than in South Asia—home to Al Qaeda. Scientists now warn that the Himalayan glaciers which supply fresh water to a billion people in the region could disappear completely by 2035.” He was referring to a statement in Chapter 10 of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But in 2010, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author for Chapter 10, admitted that the “melting by 2035” statement was not from peer-reviewed literature, but had been added to Chapter 10 to try to put pressure on world leaders. An accepting Senator Kerry fell prey to the ruse.
In another example last July, Senator Kerry warned about rising seas, stating, “With the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone, global sea levels could rise by as much as 3.26 meters in the coming years. And the Pacific and Atlantic coasts may be in for a 25 percent increase above average levels by century’s end.” But, empirical data indicate growth of both Antarctic sea ice and land ice over the last 30 years.
Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show no increase in global surface temperatures for more than ten years. Nevertheless, Mr. Kerry continues his climate crusade. In a speech on the Senate floor in August of this year, Kerry declared that global climate change was “as dangerous” as nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran. President Obama recently said that climate change would be one of his top three priorities for his second term. Mr. Kerry may be just the man to lead the crusade.
During the next four years, look for Secretary Kerry to boost efforts in a futile fight to stop global warming. The real problems of the world, such as hunger, poverty and disease in developing nations, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, may need to take a back seat.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Reality bites, and the Invisible Hand uses brass knucks as necessary. Hunker down.
Not only are Senator Kerry’s views on global warming of concern. His knowledge of geography is also deficient.
Most of the people in the foothills of the Himalayas live in India and Bangladesh where the influence of Al Qaeda is practically zero. The strongholds of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and North West Pakistan are less influenced by the Himalayan runoff. Such awareness is important for a Secretary of State.
This follows the lead of some climate scientists, who are similarly cartographically challenged. Take the (now withdrawn) Gergis et al. Australasian temperature reconstruction. Six out of the 27 temperature proxies were outside the study area of 0ºS–50ºS, 110ºE–180ºE. Most extreme were 2 proxies from Vostok base Antarctica at 78° 28′ S, 106° 50′ E. Vostok is in the Guinness Book of Records for being the coldest inhabited place on earth. Also Palmyra Atoll at 5°52′ N, 162°06′ W. Both are over 2000 km (1200 miles) outside the zone. Also, not a single proxy from the sub-continental land mass of Australia.
Beta Blocker says:
December 26, 2012 at 10:02 am
I looked for any indication of sarcasm and found none; am I being punked? So be it.
Would you care to speculate on the likely reaction of China to an embargo? Keep in mind they hold almost $1.2 trillion (10E12) in US debt as of October 2012. Japan holds just slightly less. The full list is here . Take a look; it’s instructive. I hold a low opinion of John Kerry, but if he can convince the major foreign US debt holders to continue buying Treasury securities while at the same time imposing the embargo you call for, I will cheerfully admit I have grossly underestimated him. You may also wish to review the history of the EU’s new carbon tax imposed on airline flights into the EU. Along with the US, China, India and several other asian nations refused to comply. China never openly threatened to cancel orders with Airbus, but the implied threat was always there. See here . In November the EU agreed to freeze implementation of the new tax, in effect backing down without openly surrendering.
In 1947 it is possible the US could have gotten away with unilateral policy demands like this but we cannot in today’s world, as the fate of the much more modest demand by the EU has just affirmed. I have an even lower opinion of President Obama than I do of John Kerry, but I don’t believe even he is dumb enough to think he could make such a policy stick.
Good luck with that. The political problem with rationing is it hits everyone directly, so it generates a lot more negative public reaction than trade embargos which affect most people indirectly. Obama is a politician and he judges policy primarily by whether he can claim credit if it works and deflect blame if it doesn’t. Look at the reaction to even temporary rationing in disaster zones, such as the recent “superstorm” Sandy. Even if you don’t see it Obama and his advisors will; they will remember the reaction to Jimmy Carter effectively rationing heat by his “mandatory voluntary” regulations on thermostat settings. Everybody hated and ridiculed them, and yes, the “mandatory voluntary” tag was actually how the Carter Administration described them, which gives you an idea of how hard it is to sell rationing.
That would be “all industries” period. And what do we call it when you impose stiff penalties on all industries? We call it a tax increase, targeted at industrial activities — basically every activity which produces or consumes electrical power, produces or uses any chemical products derived from petroleum (for example plastics), or uses any knd of artificial heat (metals, ceramics, etc.). And what happens when you enforce a high tax on an activity? Why you get less of it of course, or it goes underground and is not reported — in effect a price support on criminal activity.
Dear blogger formerly known as a beneficial drug: please read some history before offering foolish policies. If we could transport an average person living in the pre-industrial age into our world they would think we had achieved Heaven. If we want light, we flip a switch. If we want heat, we do likewise. We have access to food in both quantity and variety not known even to royalty 200 years ago. In the US less than 100 years ago many people grew up in rural areas having a bath once a week due to the cost of fuel to heat water. Today virtually everyone has access to hot bath/shower daily.
The average person can go to places on this planet our pre-industrial forebearers could only read about, if they could read. And while we might view the TSA as an unwarranted and overreaching inconvenience in travel, I suspect when compared to rats, scurvy, storms, pirates and other dangers of the earlier time, even they would be viewed as an improvement. In 1853, using clean renewable wind energy the Flying Cloud set the record for New York to San Francisco travel — 89 days, 8 hours. Less than 10 years earlier it had been 200 days. Today you can make that same trip in 8 hours if you’re willing to generate “carbon pollution”.
All of this is made possible by our mastery of combustion energy. I don’t know what kind of population the earth could support without all the industry and technology built on combustion processes, but I’m sure it’s well short of the 7 billion we have now. In the 1930’s, foolish policies in the US and Europe triggered a worldwide depression, drastically lowering industrial production and giving the world’s population a taste of what it is like to be thrown off an industrial standard of living. I don’t recall ever reading an account by anyone who remembers that time fondly. And to “rescue” them from the depression, some people turned to charismatic totalitarians who launched a world war which left an estimated 62 to 78 million dead.
Bad policy matters, and you’ve just advanced three outstanding examples of same. To bring this discussion back to the subject matter, I don’t believe John Kerry is dumb enough to believe in any of them, but I believe both he and President Obama are slick enough to make pleasant sounding empty noises to cause deluded people to believe they believe in them.
Ok, now you can tell me I’ve been punked.
If Senator Kerry gets on his Climate Soapbox his nomination will be over before it even begins. It is for that reason that Kerry will remain mute on the subject. And don’t think the GOP Senators will ask any troublesome questions. Senator McCain has been an avid promoter of Kerry for the Sec of State.
Kerry is a political mediocrity. He’s spent nearly 2 decades in the Senate with nothing to show for it other than marrying up. But, like so many Senators he picks a subject in which he can build a legacy. Lugar and Nunn chose foreign affairs. Kerry picked Climate. No one really knows how devoted he is to his cause. But, if he isn’t careful he could be picking fights with the wrong people. The Indians and CHICOMS are not about to be intimidated. And rightfully so. Europe and North America outsourced not only their heavy industry, but also their pollution. We now consume industrial products with a self righteous and clean conscious. But, that was only made possible by developing nations. Our aging and gentrified elite live in a fantasy world. But, that world is coming down around them. Senator Kerry may wish to double think his desire to become out next Sec of State.
Alan Watt, we must give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a man of his convictions. Senator Kerry is in a unique position at this point in history to remind Barack Obama of why he was elected President in 2008, and why he was returned to office in 2012 – because the voting public expects that the President’s agenda of hope and change, including action on climate change, be continued forward into the next four years.
We, the US voting public, must expect that Senator Kerry will act in accordance with his convictions, and this means that the voting public must hold both President Obama and the future Secretary of State accountable for backing their words of warning concerning the dangers of climate change with effective action.
Any plan to globally reduce greenhouse gas emissions must have real substance, and this means recognizing that the largest industrial emitters will not voluntarily reduce their GHG emissions unless compelled to do so through a credible threat of economic sanctions. As listed in my earlier post, the three-point program which President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should be adopting is this:
–> Operating through product safety regulations and/or environmental compliance regulations, President Obama should impose what is effectively a broad-scope trade embargo against any industrial nation which refuses to meet the goal of a 20% reduction in their total greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
–> Operating through his executive authority for dealing with national security issues, President Obama should declare a national carbon pollution emergency with strictly enforced rationing of carbon fuel consumption.
–> Operating through environmental compliance regulations, the President should instruct the EPA to levy stiff environmental compliance fines on all industries in the US which produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.
As has been pointed out, the plan outlined above could not be implemented without significant economic and personal sacrifice on the part of the American public.
However, Senator Kerry has a wealth of past experience in communicating unpleasant truths to the US pubic, and his advice to the President could draw upon that experience to offer an effective approach for gaining public acceptance of the nation’s War on Global Warming:
(1) The President should initiate a series of public forums concerning AGW topics which include leading climate scientists as speakers and which explain the science behind AGW theory to the public.
(2) The President should make it clear to the public that he has absolute confidence in the predictions of the climate scientists, and that he stands behind them both as knowledgeable scientific professionals and as honest reputable individuals concerned with the future of humanity on this planet.
(3) The President must explain why immediate action is necessary to save the planet from the effects of global warming; why US leadership is vitally necessary if the planet and its global population are to be saved from these effects; and how the sacrifices expected of the US public will contribute to the future success of the President’s plan.
(4) The President should inform the leadership of both houses of Congress of his expectation that should severe economic dislocations arise from his War on Global Warming, all US workers who are directly affected by his AGW policies will be appropriately compensated by the US Government.
President Obama has the opportunity to do for climate change what President Johnson did for civil rights fifty years ago in the 1960s, and that is to stand foursquare behind a pressing need for the US Government to take effective action on the most important issue of the day. For President Johnson, that issue was the need for action on civil rights, for President Obama, the issue is the need for immediate action on climate change.
John Kerry must convince President Obama of his obligation to recognize his pivotal role at this juncture in world history. Barack Obama will either fulfill his appointed role as the last best hope of Planet Earth, or else he will go down in history as being the one man who had the power to save the earth from the ravages of climate change, but who refused for his own selfish political reasons not to do it.
Beta Blocker says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
The President should initiate a series of public forums concerning AGW topics which include leading climate scientists as speakers and which explain the science behind AGW theory to the public.
But who would choose the speakers? I believe televised debates would be more appropriate. And each side should be allowed to choose who would debate for their side.
Beta Blocker says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
Maybe you are serious, but I notice you answered none of my reasons why your proposed policies are politically dumb, even if you believe in the premise of AGW. And you give way too much weight to “climate change” as being an important issue even to Obama voters — He has much more powerful constituencies to pay back. Take a number, wait in line and stop your complaining. He will get around to you when He has decided that His position on the issue has Evolved. Please don’t bother Him with reminders of why you think the people elected Him — He already knows.
And what, pray tell, do you take John Kerry’s convictions to be? The record is amply clear that his cherished principles do not include truthfulness. Why would you assume his recent statements are any more credible than previous ones? His major assets are good hair, wealth by marriage (twice), and the good fortune never to face a Kennedy in an election in Massachusetts. That will only carry you so far, even in Massachusetts. All politicians lie, but Kerry has demonstrated the poor judgement to pick lies that are so easily revealed.
The more interesting question to me is why he would want the Secretary of State position. As a democratic senator from Massachusetts he effectively has lifetime tenure (unless a Kennedy comes along …). As Secretary of State he will last at most another four years, and only that long if it suits President Obama. And look how quick He was to dump blame for the Benghazi debacle on Secretary Clinton.
The recent record of the Secretary of State as a springboard to higher office has not been encouraging. The last SoS to make it to the oval office was James Buchanan who served under President Polk and then was elected on his own in 1856. Both WIlliam Jennings Bryan, who served under president Wilson and Edmund Muskie, who served under President Carter held the office after their respective unsuccessful runs for President. Ditto for Colin Powell, who was never a serious presidential contender anyway and also not a career politician.
If Kerry wanted to return to the Senate he would likely have to defeat another incumbent Democrat. Governor perhaps? About the only asset Kerry brings to the SoS job is his presumed ability to shepherd whatever new treaties President Obama signs through the Senate. That was probably a significant part of President Carter’s choice of Edmund Muskie — not that it worked out for him. In modern times, the SoS position has been an end-of-career slot for a politician, although many believe Hilary Clinton will try to change that.
So in addition to your dubious policies, I question your belief that Kerry wants the SoS job to advance global action on climate change. If that is truly his passion, he could certainly do more for it as a senior senator in the majority party of the US Senate that as Secretary of State under President Obama.
So just as with Obama, if you want Kerry’s attention on climate change, you must take a number and wait until he has gotten what he really wants out of the job.