Lewis accused the American Physical Society of supporting
the global warming scam, driven with the trillions
of dollars - it has corrupted so many scientists.
Few climate studies include info on:
“The Electric Universe”
Last Update 8th April 2017
AXIOPISTY MAY BE LACKING
The CO2-Climate Change Global Warming Mantra
WE HOPE THAT THIS WEB SITE WILL ALERT OUR READERS TO SOME
OF THE MANY OTHER FACTORS, RESEARCH PAPERS SAFE OPTIONS FOR OUR FUTURE
❝ Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized
and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible – atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) – denigrated as an atmospheric “pollutant” in a widely circulated movie.
This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed. ❞
Harold Warren Lewis, a respected physicist who had previously advised both the U.S. Government and the Pentagon on various matters including missile defence and nuclear winter, shocked his peers when he disseminated his letter of resignation from the American Physical Society. Lewis accused the American Physical Society of supporting “ the global warming scam, with the trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists. ”
In the years 1421-22 the Chinese sailed around
the north and south poles, and though the
Northwest Passage, which was then ice-free.
They chiseled marks in the rocks on various headlands. These marks are
now below low water mark; evidence of warmer times and oceans rising…
ICE FREE NORTH WEST PASSAGE
See the five web sites below:
See also the book ‘Devining’ by Christopher Bird – ISBN 354 043889
See also → NAUTICAPEDIA
More → HERE
Carbon dioxide is NOT a hazard, and to tax it makes no sense. – It is a breath tax !
Carbon dioxide as the single cause of climate change is the new version of the ‘Millennium bug’.
Here’s why our planet, our forests and our oceans all needs MORE CO2:↓
1) HYDROFLUORCARBONS (HFCs)
2) PERFLUOROCARBONS (PFCs)
3) SULPHUR HEXAFLUORIDE (SF6)
Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)
is a non flammable greenhouse gas.
It has an atmospheric residence time ranging from 500
to several thousand years according to the
intergovernmental panel on climate change.
SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a ‘g’ of 22,800 times that of CO2 when compared over a 100-year period. Measurements of SF6 show that its global average mixing ratio has increased by about 0.2ppt per year to over 7 ppt.
Sulfur hexafluoride is also extremely long-lived. It is inert in the troposphere and stratosphere and has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 800–3200 years. (ozone depletion.) Atmospheric lifetime and GWP relative to CO2 at different time.
Geophysical Research Letters article:
“Ozone Depletion by Hydrofluorocarbons”
By Staff Writers Norwich, UK (SPX) 16 March 2014 Scientists at the University of East Anglia have identified four new man-made gases in the atmosphere–all of which are contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer. New research published today in the journal Nature Geoscience reveals that more than 74,000 tonnes of three new chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and one new hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) have been released into the atmosphere.
Scientists made the discovery by comparing today’s air samples with air trapped in polar firn snow – which provides a century-old natural archive of the atmosphere. They also looked at air collected between 1978 and 2012 in unpolluted Tasmania. Measurements show that all four new gases have been released into the atmosphere recently – and that two are significantly accumulating. Emission increases of this scale have not been seen for any other CFCs since controls were introduced during the 1990s. But they are nowhere near peak CFC emissions of the 1980s which reached around a million tonnes a year. Lead researcher Dr Johannes Laube from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences said: “Our research has shown four gases that were not around in the atmosphere at all until the 1960s which suggests they are man-made.”
“CFCs are the main cause of the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Laws to reduce and phase out CFCs came into force in 1989, followed by a total ban in 2010. This has resulted in successfully reducing the production of many of these compounds on a global scale. However, legislation loopholes still allow some usage for exempted purposes.
“The identification of these four new gases is very worrying as they will contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer. We don’t know where the new gases are being emitted from and this should be investigated. Possible sources include feedstock chemicals for insecticide production and solvents for cleaning electronic components.
“What’s more, the three CFCs are being destroyed very slowly in the atmosphere – so even if emissions were to stop immediately, they will still be around for many decades to come,” he added.
This research has been funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS), the European Union, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).(Australia)
‘Newly detected ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere’ is published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday, 9 March 2014.
Thank you C.R.I.R.O.
Full text → HERE ←
THIS LOOKS VERY PROMISING → HERE ← NEW
Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: ”Today marks the beginning of the end for fluorinated gases in Europe. Not only is this good for the climate, but also for the European industries that will invest in more innovative, cleaner alternatives…
The RAAF once used harmless environmentally friendly fermented
blood and bone, and liquorice to make fire fighting foam.
EXTRACT: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) are potent greenhouse gases (GHGs), which can be collectively described as Kyoto Protocol synthetic GHGs (KP-SGGs). HFCs are used extensively in Australia, largely in air conditioning and refrigeration, initially as ‘ozone-friendly’ replacements for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Minor uses of HFCs in Australia are as aerosol propellants, including metered dose inhalers (MDIs), as foam blowing agents and in fire extinguishers. PFCs are a by-product of the production of aluminium in Australia and overseas and, in addition, are used overseas in the electronics industry during the manufacture of integrated circuits and plasma screens. Refrigeration represents a very minor use of PFCs in Australia and overseas. Sulfur hexafluoride is used extensively in the electricity distribution industry, both in Australia and overseas, for dielectric insulation and current interruption in circuit breakers, switchgear, and other electrical equipment, and as a cover gas in metal production, for example magnesium. There does not appear to be any significant use of nitrogen trifluoride in Australia, which is used internationally in the semi-conductor production industry, initially as a replacement for PFCs.
Sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) and trifluoromethyl sulfurpentafluoride (CF3SF5) are potent synthetic greenhouse gases that ARE NOT PART OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL SUITE of SGGs (KP-SGGs). [ Our emphisis ] Sulfuryl fluoride use in Australia is growing rapidly, as a replacement for phosphine (PH3) and possibly methyl bromide (CH3Br), in grain fumigation. [*]It is unlikely that trifluoromethyl sulfurpentafluoride is used in Australia. Its occurrence in the atmosphere is largely as a by-product of the production of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS: CF3(CF2)7SO3H), which has never been manufactured in Australia, but is a key ingredient in fabric stain repellants (e.g. 3M’s Scotchguard) … [*] Co2 is a safer option… Full text → HERE ←
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology ReviewsVolume 28, Issue 2, 2010
Abstract: Sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) is used primarily as a fumigant in replacement of methyl bromide, but it has the potential to contribute significantly to the global warming. This article introduces SO2F2 in the physicochemical properties, the current uses in agriculture and industry, the toxicological data, and the environmental implications on the basis of its environmental properties. The health hazards of SO2F2 and its probable decomposition products were also evaluated based on their occupational exposure limits and possible exposure sources. The resident and occupational exposure assessment was further discussed to understand seriousness of risk caused by SO2F2 and its decomposition products…
The new Air Resources Board regulation
↓ California Limits SF6 ↓
Environment News Service
❝ …In 1999, PG & E set a three-year goal of reducing annual SF6 emissions by 50 percent from a 1998 baseline and achieve this goal. Efforts to reduce SF6 emissions at PG & E resulted in the discovery that more equipment was leaking than the company previously thought… ❞
THE NEW F. CONTAINING REFRIGERANT
( Also known as HFO-1234yf )
HONEYWELL has hit back at a
German motoring magazine article describing its new
HFO-1234yf as a ” Killer Refrigerant.”
While car manufacturers around the world look set to standardise on 1234yf as the replacement for R134a in vehicle air conditioning systems, environmental groups and others in Germany continue to raise concerns over its flammability and the potential release of highly toxic hydrogen fluoride in the case of a fire. Under the headline
“The Killer Refrigerant”, influential German motoring magazine ‘Auto Bild’ describes HFO-1234yf as “Environmentally friendly, but dangerous”.
❝ …1234yf is yet another transitional refrigerant, 350 times less harmful than 134a, but not benign. CO2 or water as refrigerants are ideal as they are benign, and very cheap, it is just that they require expensive compressors (titanium, turbos, etc.). They are also said to be more efficient overall (they require higher compression but give even more cooling to more than make up for the extra compression energy used)… ❞
and air conditioners use industry-leading technology Ozone friendly refrigerant
→ MORE INFO ON REFRIGERANTS ←
[ With all those ‘F’ & ‘C’ it makes CO2 and water look simple and safe! ]
With the potential to knock out 1% of global greenhouse gases, the world’s automotive manufacturers are being urged to opt for the sustainable solution in “The Cool War” as they make their decision over which new refrigerant to adopt for mobile air conditioning in cars.
— SULFURYL FLUORIDE —
Sulfuryl Fluoride also a greenhouse gas, is about 4000-5000 times more efficient
in trapping infrared radiation (per kg) than CO2 (per kg).
Sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) developed by the
Dow Chemical Company.
Sulfuryl fluorde is marketed as:
Vikane, ProFume, Zythor and Master Fume.
— CFCS – CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS —
contain carbon, chlorine, and fluorine.The manufacture of these compounds has been phased out by the Montreal Protocol, because they contribute to ozone depletion. However CFCs are still leaking from old refrigerators in land fill, and it may be many years before this stops.
chemical formula CH4 also affects the degradation of the ozone layer —Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 compared to CO2 [Which is 1 (one)]
“Dam interesting “
How Bacteria Nearly Destroyed All Life
Written by Alan Bellows on Aug. 2008
Southern California’s Aliso Canyon
PORTER RANCH METHANE GAS LEAK DISASTER aerial video this week showing the tremendous, continuous release of methane Los Angeles County will continue to live under a state of emergency
THE MASSIVE CALIFORNIA NATURAL GAS LEAK NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT
Though it seems to be oddly absent from the mainstream media headlines,
a massive methane gas leak in Southern California read more
This is a good site, but not well informed on fluorides or termites ↓
→ HERE ←
— SUNSPOTS & ‘HOCKEY STICKS‘ —
If you go back through time you will notice many
→ Click to enlarge ←
FULL TEXT → HERE
— SUN SPOTS —
Sun Spots are intense ‘bubbles’- storms of magnetic energy, larger than our Earth – (see the images at the top of this page). These solar storms come in eleven-year cycles (average) and are recoded in sea coral, ice cores and tree growth rings. These organic records show many climate changes long before our industrial age… The solar cycle length may also be responsible for variation in temperature as well as the number of sunspots, which also can vary in size. The affects of pollution by humans and volcanoes will not be immediate and may be delayed for months or years, making it difficult to assign blame… With so much disagreement amongst the ‘experts’ we can only speculate. —
Volcanic activity, earthquakes, rainfall, power grids failures and civil unrest, increase at times of high sunspot activity. The earth and the rest of our solar system has just come through some of the lowest peaks for several thousand years hence the global heating, and droughts. We are now entering what seems to be more normal activity, some predictions are that 2012-2014 will be a VERY active time for the sun, with all the above implications…
— GLOBAL COOLING ? —
Millions of tones of fluorides, dusts and carbon dioxide are emitted from active volcanoes. The dust emissions circulating in the upper atmosphere reflect heat back into outer space, with a delay time of a few years, so we can expect more rain, earth cooling, and more earthquakes in the near future – not global warming. One year’s volcanic activity of one Indonesian volcano can discharge more carbon into the atmosphere, than we humans have throughout our history.
— OIL, COAL AND URANIUM —
Burning coal, and oil♦ results in pollution of the planet with mercury and a list of other chemical contaminants to stress your dictionary and the alphabet.
Nuclear power is uneconomic if the full cost of mining and the long-term management of waste and the decommissioning of power stations are included, and is therefor NOT carbon neutral.
Like fluoridation nuclear power is based on deceit and lies.
Nuclear power plants are only possible due to funding of billions of government dollars.
In a ‘carbon economy’ the overall nuclear cycle – from mining, transporting and processing uranium ore, to disposing of radioactive waste and decommissioning power plants – generates CO2. which could be the same as from a gas-fired power station. Fast-breeder reactors would result in a plutonium economy with dangerous plutonium toxicity, nuclear weapons implications and global contamination for thousands of years. (CO2 is not poisonous in fact it is plant food.) Nuclear power primary existence was to supply plutonium for bomb manufacture – not cheap electricity, and on a planet with suicide bombers nuclear and security is very costly.
♦ OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL:
Quote, the British Scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS – “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”….
May be this is why Vladimir Putin is not popular in the ‘West’ .
Oil is not a fossil fuel. This is a theory put forth by 18th century scientists. Within 50 years, Germany and France’s scientists had attacked the theory of petroleum’s biological roots. In fact, oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for better or for worse, is NOT a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil.
Read all about it below. ↓ ↓ ↓
OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL ←→ -It is renewable- ←→ Thomas Gold
The British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS – “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”… ‘Big oil’ has a vested interest in pushing the idea that oil is scarce, hard to find, and thus costly to produce — all of which, of course, means increased revenues and profits.
See also Blood Oil – A new book by Leif Wenar
PS There is plenty of oil in Queensland. – Why are we importing it?
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT CLEAN OR GREEN – Even if coal, and oil, burning do not influence climate change, these activities need to be reduced and finally stopped due to the pollution they cause. Clean thermonuclear alternatives need to be pursued or Helium3. The use of atomic power stations, ships and weapons is a continual threat to the health and survival of life on earth. The energy produced by atomic power is cancelled out by the high of cost for the long term servicing of radioactive waste, which certainly is not carbon neutral…
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 – by Isao Hashimoto
Do not this watch before going to bed.
LEAKING NUCLEAR WASTE CONTAMINATING GROUND WATER Credit Natural News “Hanford Determines Double-Shell Tank Leaked Waste From Inner Tank. This headline on a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) press release from last October is bigger news than it first appeared. For the first time, the massive storage tanks built to hold some of the most radioactive nuclear waste in the world were found to be slowly leaking.
The United States campaign to build a giant arsenal of nuclear weapons during the Cold War created an environmental disaster at Hanford Site in Washington State. Highly radioactive sludge being leaked threatens to contaminate the region’s water supply.
In February, federal and state officials said six giant underground tanks holding a toxic brew of highly radioactive wastes are leaking at the 570-square-mile Hanford Reservation. The location of this nuclear waste site is right on the Columbia River in South Central Washington State. Dirtiest nuclear waste stored at the Hanford Site
Hanford is known as the dirtiest reactor site in the world. It has 1,000 inactive dumps, 200 square miles of contaminated ground water, and 50,000 drums of plutonium wastes in temporary storage. For nearly 40 years, Hanford’s eight production reactors made plutonium for hydrogen bombs for the US Military. During that process, contractors dumped plutonium, cesium, technetium, tritium, strontium and other isotopes into the air, soil, and ground water. More astonishingly, they even dumped nuclear waste directly into the Columbia River – the drinking water source for downstream cities.
Hanford has 54 million gallons of the high-level waste liquids and sludge contained in 177 aged and decrepit storage tanks. Back in the 1980s, the DOE disclosed that up to 69 of the million-gallon tanks may be leaking. February’s disclosure makes 75; six are confirmed leaking.
The Human Fallout
In 1990, a DOE analysis of radiation exposures downwind from Hanford found that infants and children were heavily contaminated because of drinking contaminated milk. The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project found that 13,500 people may have received doses over 33 rads of iodine-131 and that infants and children closest to Hanford could have consumed between 650 and 3,000 rads. A single rad can cause thyroid cancer and other illnesses.
Cancers, miscarriages and other health problems suffered by people in the area were linked to the deliberate spewing of 5,500 curies of radioactive iodine-131 to the atmosphere in a Dec. 3, 1949, experiment called “green run,” and on the offhand dispersal of 340,000 curies in 1945 alone.
Hanford’s latest six leaks are just a microcosm of the radiation leaked from the site which continues to leak deadly nuclear waste to the Columbia River resulting in a plague of cancer and disease that seems to have no end. What is Washington State doing about this? Washington Governor Jay Inslee and the U.S. Department of Energy are each looking for answers from a private company managing the most dangerous radioactive waste at the Hanford Site, where plutonium was made for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Inslee has asked his top Hanford adviser to begin inquiries into the situation with the leaking double-shell tank, a spokesperson for his office said.
Inslee said, “We’re going to be reviewing this. We know how diligent I want this state to be of having a zero tolerance policy … on leaking radioactivity. It is the right policy. It is demanding, but it is legally enforceable and we’re going to continue to insist on that policy.”
Inslee added: “We are going to be insistent that our federal partners be open and transparent with us to the extent humanly possible, that we are and will be reviewing what happened in this particular circumstance.”
Sources for this article include ↓ ↓
A promising new way of making high-efficiency
solar cells, using perovskites instead of silicon.
See also our site on: → CORAL BLEACHING
GLOBAL COOLING – ICE AGES
Although this book is more concerned with global cooling, it covers many aspects of climate change. We therefore commend it to anyone looking for scientific info on a broad scale, – both in time and space. ❝…Even if there is a slight global warming at present, it would be difficult to prove that this is caused by industrial atmospheric pollution. Global climate is never stable in any case, and short-term oscillations of a few centigrade degrees are probably a perfectly normal feature of our environment. Other atmospheric changes have seriously been considered as factors in the waxing and waning of the world’s ice cover. The ozone composition of the upper atmosphere is thought to be affected by solar flares and also by industrial pollution, [fluorides] but it is not certain how much global cooling and warming can be accounted for by changes in the ozone layer. Volcanic eruption may also affect the climate, especially if there are many large-scale eruptions over a short space of time which add volcanic dust [and fluorides] to the atmosphere. However, it is now thought that the effects of volcanic eruptions are short-lived, and it has been demonstrated that volcanic dust seldom remains in suspension in the atmosphere for more than seven years after an eruption… ❞
OTHER ISSUES DEALT WITH IN THIS BOOK INCLUDE
— INTERNAL —
1 Variations in the Earth’s core – alterations in the output of heat from
radioactive materials [natural] inside the Earth.
2 Alterations in the direction and strength of the convection currents
which may exist within the Earth’s mantle. – geothermal heat flux.
3 Frequency of reversals of the Earth’s magnetic fields.
(Over 80 in the last 2,000 million years.)
— SOLAR —
4 Our sun is a slightly variable star.
Its energy is output is NOT a constant. – Őpic.
5 There may be a ‘flickering’- on a timescale of the order of 250-300 million years.
6 Many periodicities have been recognized or assumed, ranging from millions of
to less than a year.
7 Solar emission cycles with periods of between 200,00 and 400,000 years have received particular attention.
8 Sunspot cycles. [11 year average]
9 Precession of the equinoxes: 21,000 – 25,000 years
10 The obliquity of the Earth’s orbit: c. 41,000 years
11 The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit: 90,000 – 100,000 years
— GALACTIC —
12 The Solar System moves up and down through the galactic plane.
13 The effects of interstellar dust veils.
14 Solar winds from other stars.
15 Changes in spin-rate of the Earth.
❝ Each of these factors might lead independently to small coolings and warmings of the global climate, but substantial climatic changes such as those involved in the initiation of an ice age can probably not occur until three factors are ‘favourable’ phased at the same time…❞
— THE LITTLE ICE AGE IN WEST ANTARCTICA —
It synchronous with the Little Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere “probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing”…
→ Read More ←
Orsi, A.J., Cornuelle, B.D. and Severinghaus J.P. 2012.
Little Ice Age cold interval in West Antarctica:
Evidence from borehole temperature at
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide.
Geophysical Research Letters 39: 10.1029/2012GL051260.
→ HERE ←
SOME NEW CLEANER OPTIONS:
– BLACK SMOKERS –
Hydrothermal Vents (Under the sea)
Hydrothermal vents exist at the ocean floor, 2100m (7000ft) below the surface.
They exist in many oceans around the world, especially in the Pacific and Atlantic.
Hydrothermal electricity clean and green ← a short must watch …
– HELIUM-3 –
Europe, China, India and Russia are also space nations. China is planning to mine Helium-3 on the moon, where it is plentiful, for a future fusion economy. Fusion power (not radioactive) based on Helium-3 will give us all clean energy for thousands of years. ( Provided no one else is there first! )
– THORIUM REACTORS –
Thorium reactors COULD be a safer alternative than uranium, but this would not suit the military – (no bomb material) or the uranium industry, as it would give more nations access, to power, as thorium is more ubiquitous than uranium. Both India and China are researching this now. (Australia has the largest known deposits of Thorium in the world.) More info on Thorium reactors → HERE
– WIND POWER –
Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear power.
A surprising aerodynamic innovation in wind turbine design called the ‘wind lens’ could triple the output of a typical wind turbine, making it less costly than nuclear power.
NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed
TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power – $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal – and that is without government subsidies using today’s wind turbine technology.
— NEW SOLAR CELLS + D C Wind Turbines —
The new efficient solar cells that respond to none visible light, (still work on cloudy days), optical double sided cells, DC wind turbines that can operate at any wind speed and do not require a gearbox. Peaking power plants and base load hydro-power from stored water pumped up behind dams by wind turbines, at off peak times, offer some cleaner options until we progress further with cold or hot fusion (helium 3), conversion of water into hydrogen, or the harnessing neutrinos, Hydrothermal, or whatever scientists discover in the future… ‘The Blue Economy’ as per Gunter Pauli, is offering many other innovations of great merit.
Japan’s recent tragic nuclear experience may stimulate some new developments worldwide. However industrial corruption, electronic sabotage and debt banking in the USA will hinder these technical developments there and, its support for Israel with its endless Middle East wars will bleed the USA white, financially, thus reducing its research and development potential.
The myth of global warming, driven by massive well-financed media-protected propaganda, has persuaded many politicians and centers of learning that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a problem. -
See extract→ Eisenhower’s Farewell Speech But, as explained above, ‘It ain’t necessarily so’.
The Theory of CO2 and Global Warming
May Be Seriously Flawed
And External Cosmic Forces Are More Likely Explanations
“Global Dimming” … inhibition of photosynthesis and agricultural production.
Maybe that is why 31,487 scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, reject man-made global warming by carbon dioxide.
→ www.petitionproject.org/ ←
See also the book ‘Heaven+ Earth” by Professor Ian Plimer
❝ I don’t pretend to understand the Universe — it’s a great deal bigger than I am. ❞
Carlyle – in his Old Age
AS THE CLIMATE CHANGES, EITHER TO HOT OR COLD.
THESE COMMON SENSE RULES STILL APPLY :
1) Don’t build or live close to fault lines, volcanoes, on steep slopes, or close to water,
( wharves being the exception ).
2) Stop weather modification
3) Manage all human activities as sustainably as possible:
Clean Air, Clean Water, Clean Food, and Clean Fire.
More information is also available:
To receive weekly summaries of this new material posted on the NIPCC
(Non Governmental International Panel On Climate Change) website
(Not connected to us), → click here.
Postal Address:NIPCC Project
Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
P.O. Box 25697
Tempe, AZ 85285-5697
USANIPCC_contact “at” nipccreport.org
The Australian “Carbon Tax”
will WAS TO be paid in-part to the
United Nations World Government not by choice, – but by law.
In February 2011 Paul Murray from the WestAustralian reported that:
Ex- ‘Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s new tax was to be used to allow Australia to meet its share of a $100 billion-a-year United Nations fund to transfer wealth from rich countries to help undeveloped nations adapt to global warming. The Gillard Government was party to a UN agreement which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about 10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations will go into a Green Climate Fund.
❝ … They [Australians] do not want a carbon tax, not because they do not care about the environment but because they know that it will do nothing for the environment. They know that it will not lower global temperatures one jot or tittle. We absolutely know that and no-one has ever disputed it. They also know that billions of their dollars are going to be sent offshore to unaccountable regimes or organisations. You are going to see it go to an international United Nations fund and you are also going to have to buy permits from nations which have a less than rigorous reputation for financial transparency and honesty.
These are things that all concern us… ❞
Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party)
He makes no mention of other atmospheric pollutants,
– still he has got it right so far! )
‘MARINE SNOW’ – PART OF NATURES CARBON SEQUESTRATION –
… Because of the relatively long residence time of the ocean’s thermohaline circulation, carbon transported as marine snow into the deep ocean by the biological pump can remain out of contact with the atmosphere for more than 1000 years. That is, when the marine snow is finally decomposed to inorganic nutrients and dissolved carbon dioxide, these are effectively isolated from the surface ocean for relatively long time-scales related to oceancirculation. Consequently, enhancing the quantity of marine snow that reaches the deep ocean is the basis of several geoengineering schemes to enhance carbon sequestration by the ocean. Ocean nourishment and iron fertilisation seek to boost the production of organic material in the surface ocean, with a concomitant rise in marine snow reaching the deep ocean. As of yet, these efforts have not produced a sustainable fertilization that effectively transports carbon out of the system…
… The small percentage of material not consumed in shallower waters becomes incorporated into the muddy “ooze” blanketing the ocean floor, where it is further decomposed through biological activity. About three-quarters of the deep ocean floor is covered in this thick, smooth ooze. The ooze collects as much as six meters (20 feet) every million years. It is usually 289 meters (948 feet) thick,
– but can be up to nearly 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) thick…
Credit NOAA – Wow, that IS a lot of carbon !
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office
report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it:
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012
there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about
the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 21:42 GMT, 13 October 2012 |
UPDATED: 13:59 GMT, 16 October 2012
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago,
according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
However, F. Gases are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore
have become an important element of the European Climate Change
Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main
forum for discussing and developing policies to combat
climate change and meet Kyoto demands.
Update → → HERE ← 18 May 2016
Corporate Europe Observatory, October 2005
↓ WORST LOBBY AWARD ↓
WHEN BEFORE HAVE REFRIGERANTS BEEN A HOT ITEM ?
An important EU initiative which seeks to regulate the use of some highly potent green house gases has been under attack from its inception by F-gas industry lobbying, who seek to weaken its impact on their business activities. The Brussels front for this lobby, which consists of mainly US based multinationals, is the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). It is now working hard to influence the European Parliament so that current Parliament proposals do not undermine industry’s initial lobbying success by introducing tougher regulation after all. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton.
The EU is one of the main contributors to global climate change. In order to meet even its own Kyoto commitments, generally considered not nearly enough, EU countries have to take serious action. High on the to-do list is reducing the emissions of the ‘F-gases’. These industrial fluorinated gases (hydro fluorocarbons or HFCs, perfluorocarbons or PFCs and sulphur hexafluoride or SF6), have extremely high Global Warming Potentials (GWP). With their growing production, F-gases will count for a increasing share of global greenhouse emissions. Unique among pollutants that cause climate change, is that F-gases are not a by-product, but deliberately produced and promoted substances.
USE OF FLUORIDE-GASES
F-gases are used in many appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioning, foam blowers and car tyres. They replaced ozone-depleting gases such as chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), which are being phased out globally as part of the 1990 Montreal Protocol. F-gases are therefore often portrayed by their manufacturers as ‘environmentally friendly’. However, they are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore have become an important element of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main forum for discussing and developing policies to combat climate change and meet Kyoto demands.
In most appliances, natural alternatives with negligible GWP compared to F-gases are either already available and widely used, or are in development. For example, Greenpeace and German company DKK Scharfenstein introduced ‘Greenfreeze’ hydrocarbon refrigerators into the European market in the 1990s. Now, fridges made by major European [and Japanese] companies such as Siemens and Bosch are nearly all F-gas free. Big food corporations are switching to F-gas free commercial refrigeration.
Despite this and to the disappointment of many, in 2003 the European Commission’s initial proposal for regulating F-gases focused on containment rather than out-right bans. This meant a focus on how the substance is handled, preventing leakage, instead of limiting the use of it. Furthermore, internal market law was chosen as the legal base for the proposal instead of EU environmental law. This effectively prevents individual Member States from imposing their own bans or introducing stricter rules. This is significant because countries such as Denmark and Austria, have been pursuing national F-gas bans and are supporting the switch to alternatives.
After two and a half years of discussions, the F-gas Regulation is nearly finalised. At the end of October 2005, a crucial European Parliament vote may bring fundamental improvements to the current proposal.
WHO IS THE EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR ENERBY AND THE ENVIRONMENT?
While the makers of products using F-gases in many cases have the option to switch to alternatives, Fgas producers have a great interest in sustaining their use. DuPont’s Annual Review in 2004 states that: “With global patent rights for three critical HFC refrigerant blends, DuPont is poised to benefit from implementation of the Montreal Protocol [...]”. DuPont is expanding its F-gas activities in China, a fast-growing air conditioning and refrigeration market. Honeywell and Arkema (part of oil giant Total) are doing the same. Clearly, patent portfolio’s and investment strategies are at the core of the industry’s current offensive and their battle against any F-gas phase outs. In 2002, new F-gas factories were proposed or under construction in European countries like the UK, France and Spain.
The failure of the US government to take meaningful action against global warming is well known. US producers of alternative refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, argue that the absence of US action against F-gases is due to political pressure of pro-F-gas groups “that are closely linked to DuPont”. As a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the US government and US industries often characterise European initiatives that seek to take action against global warming as barriers to trade “under the guise of environmental protection”. However, it became apparent that in the EU, F-gases were going to be subject to some kind of regulation. So the F-gas industry devised a more European and ‘green’ façade, in order to take action to keep any impending regime as weak as possible. To this end, in 2000, the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE) was founded.
The EPEE presents itself as the ‘voice of the European refrigeration and air-conditioning sector’.
However, the 23 members on the ‘European’ member list are mostly American or Japanese multinationals with plants in Europe (DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Baltimore Aircoil, Copeland, Carrier, Daikin, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and others). The absence of most European refrigerator manufacturers, including Siemens, Bosch, Miele, Delonghi, AEG and Liebherr, is highly significant, as they have all largely switched to alternatives to F-gases.
LOBBY ON F-GAS
The most vocal lobby on the F-gas regulation has undoubtedly come from the F-gas producers themselves, either through EPEE or the European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC), part of the chemical industry lobby organisation CEFIC. All five members of EFCTC are also members of EPEE. Other industry sectors lobbying on the F-gas regulation represent the variety of uses of F-gases: [The] producers of foam, cars, fire fighting equipment and food companies. All are worried about the costs of transition to alternatives. Large food companies like McDonald’s got involved in hope of subsidies for their switch to F-gas free refrigerators. The CIAA (food and drink industry federation) recently got involved to oppose bans that would affect other companies that have not yet switched.
Opposing the pro-F-gas lobby, green NGOs like Greenpeace and Climate Action Network Europe, along with producers of alternative refrigerants, have fought for the EU to adopt a much more far reaching approach to reduce F-gas emissions.
There are significant gaps in the membership list which is available on the EPEE website, such as EPEE founding member: the US Airconditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). The ARI is closely related to the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP). Both are based in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington. The EPEE and ARAP are closely linked, with largely overlapping memberships. The only two companies listed as “US” members of the EPEE (Rheem Manufacturing and Lennox International), are very involved in both lobby groups. Dave Lewis of Lennox International is chairman of ARAP. All the other US companies are listed with their European offices. The names of the two organisations include typical terms such as ‘Alliance’ and ‘Partnership’, ‘Responsible’ and ‘Environment’, and reflect a decade-long tradition of industry front groups working against progressive social and environmental legislation. For many years, US and EU multinationals had the ‘Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue’ (TABD) at their disposal for co-coordinated transatlantic lobbying. The TABD was founded in 1995 as an initiative of the European Commission and the US government. This controversial body grants these companies privileged access to high level policy makers. When refrigerants became an issue, a ‘Refrigerants Group’ was set up within the TABD, on the US side, headed by the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).
Following a 1994 EU proposal to unilaterally ban certain ozone depleting HCFCs, the European Commission was criticised by the TABD Refrigerants Group and accused of being “unresponsive to industry input and facts”. A few years later, the TABD focus shifted to the F-gases. Responding to a Danish government plan to ban certain F-gases by 2006, industry took action directly to the European Commission. Reporting on the Cincinatti TABD summit in December 2000, the ARI newsletter states that: “The Refrigerants Group briefed Peter Horrocks, the EU’s Environment Head of Sector, and Gerhard Lohan, the EU’s Enterprise Head of Unit, for nearly two hours on the merits of long-term HFC use”. Refrigerants remained a major issue at later TABD meetings.
As demonstrated later, the privileged access that the TABD offered to the F-gas industry influenced key concepts in the first Commission F-gas proposal. The TABD also played an important role in paving the way for a European twin organisation to ARAP to establish itself as a ‘credible stakeholder’. From its inception, the EPEE has served as a platform from which the European decision makers, media and public are supplied with the ‘green’ F-gas message.
CLOUDY ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS
In Brussels, public relations (PR) firms play a key, but opaque role in assisting corporate lobbying. The EPEE is an example of this. The EPEE website does not reveal that the group’s Brussels operations are by and large run by public affairs giant Hill & Knowlton, located on 118 Avenue de Cortenbergh, one of Brussels’ lobbying hotspots. The EPEE has the maximum permitted number of four (previously six) lobbyists accredited with fulltime access passes to the European Parliament on its behalf. All but one are Hill & Knowlton employees, registered as ‘EPEE’.
Hill & Knowlton consultants designed EPEE’s lobbying strategy, do the organisational work, and conduct most of the lobbying of EU officials and parliamentarians. While the content and approach of ARAP’s arguments have evidently been copied to EPEE, the EPEE website is more stylish and has a distinctively more ‘green’ flavour to it. Hill & Knowlton claim that thanks to its work, “EPEE has become a legitimate and credible stakeholder in the refrigeration policy debate”. In a very similar manner, the ARAP is established and run by PR firm Alcalde & Fay in Washington.
The EPEE lobbying strategy is clearly focused on greening the image of F-gases. To the United Nations, the EPEE claims a commitment to “contribute to the development of effective European policies to reduce greenhouse gases from the use of refrigerants”. Meanwhile to industry, ARI president William Sutton talks about how: “[...] the EPEE [...] is fighting against the possible phase-out of HFC refrigerants in Europe”.
ARAP/EPEE claim that the environmental benefits of F-gases are (1) they replace ozone depleting CFCs, (2) their potential energy efficiency compared to alternatives in some appliances, generating less CO2 emissions. It is argued that (3) with maximum containment, leakage into the atmosphere can be prevented. Diverse arguments are used to discredit the alternatives like hydrocarbons (4).
GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OZONE?
The founders of the EPEE were actively engaged in the fight against the phase-out of CFC’s.
According to internet sources, Hill & Knowlton has in the past assisted in the defense of CFC’s by downplaying its role in the destruction of the ozone layer. Dr. J. Masters, meteorologist, notes how in 1975, when scientists first discovered the ozone hole, Hill & Knowlton was hired by the CFC industry to organise a month long speakers tour around the US for a ozone-skeptic scientist to discredit the discovery as just a ‘number of theories’.
Later, the CFC industry took control of the situation and supported CFC phase-outs, as they saw benefits from the opening market for their replacements, F-gases. Meanwhile, their lobbying continued to slow down the speed of CFC phase-out. For this initial purpose, the ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’ was founded. This Alliance was later renamed the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’.
Kevin Fay (of PR company Alcalde & Fay), then director of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, was quoted commenting on the Montreal Protocol as: “it goes much further than anything we think is necessary”. Mr. Fay is still active in the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy as a special counsel.
The companies behind ARAP and EPEE, former producers and promoters of CFCs, should not be given any credit for the global move towards CFC phase-out. Furthermore, the fact that F-gases are non-ozone depleting does not make them ‘environmentally benign’ as F-gas companies often claim, as they are still highly potent greenhouse gases.
1. The very first impression about the EPEE, given by the website’s flashy introductory film, is its concern with the hole in the ozone layer. However, it fails to say that the alternatives to F-gases are equally non ozone depleting. Moreover, EPEE members like DuPont, Solvay and Daikin have made a fortune out of ozone destroying CFC’s in the past, and were initially opposed to their phase outs.
2. For many appliances, alternatives to F-gases are not less energy efficient. Hydrocarbons are used on mass scale and are very energy efficiently in home fridges. The energy efficiency of a product tends to depend on the design of the system used. More investments would speed up the development of energy efficient appliances using alternatives to F-gases, like hydrocarbons, ammonia or CO2.
[Editor’s note: water and CO2 can be used for air conditioning - see other information on this web site. & at end of this page]
3. The total greenhouse emissions of an F-gas product depends on how much F-gas ends up in the atmosphere. There is still no agreement on actual leakage rates. The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) has recently published a report that questions the leakage percentages under the Dutch containment model that the draft EU F-gas regulation is based on. According to IEEP, percentages may be allowing far higher emissions than the often quoted 4.8%.
4. The F-gas lobby constantly refers to the alternatives as ‘flammables’ (especially hydrocarbons), despite the fact that hydrocarbon fridges have proved completely safe. The TABD Refrigerants Group even requested that “the EU Commission and Member States recognise the need for the management and containment of all refrigerants, regardless of the type”. This would mean that CO2 as a refrigerator would have to be contained and recycled after use, despite its negligible global warming potential compared to F-gases. This ‘request’ was clearly meant to reduce the attraction of more cost effective alternatives to F-gases.
In a variety of different ways, the F-gas industry is able to achieve political influence, thereby putting competing alternatives at a disadvantage. For example, in the UK, last year a report was published based on documents provided by Calor Gas, a hydrocarbon producer, demonstrating how alternatives to F-gases were treated unfairly in UK standard setting procedures. The F-gas interests were consistently over-represented in numerical terms during technical committees setting standards for air conditioning and refrigeration. According to the report, the UK government largely left the standard setting process to industry, resulting in negligible external oversight. “This then perpetuates the status quo”. Since participation in standard setting working groups is very costly and time consuming, “[...] it is rare for any contribution [...] to come from any source other than well-financed interested parties within industry”, says the report. Calor Gas referred the matter to the UK Office of Fair Trading.
THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL
In 2000, the European Commission started work on a legislative proposal to address F-gases, as part of the EU’s efforts to meet its Kyoto commitments. A special Commission ‘working group on fluorinated gases’ was formed. DG Environment was given prime responsibility for the issue, in close cooperation with DG Enterprise. The participants’ list of this working group is not available on the European Commission website. At CEO’s request, DG Environment responded the list could not be found. As the list shows, there was a clear lack of representation of the non-F-gas refrigerant industry, as well as of public interest NGOs. The F-gas industry, on the contrary, was well represented by both individual companies, the EPEE and the EFCTC. Working group members were principally invited, but could also apply themselves. The uneven composition of the working group may be because of a biased invitation policy. However capacity issues among NGOs and the non-F-gas industry, combined with a lack of awareness of the political process may have also contributed. However, such working groups have an advisory role, and it should be stressed that it is up to the Commission to decide to what extent their advice is reflected in legislative proposals. Jason Anderson of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, the only NGO representative on the working group, reports that “the fluorocarbon manufacturers, with a vested interest in F-gases, were most vocal, as well as several industry groups with long working relationships with the F-gas industry. Producers of alternatives were represented by only one or two people.” In relation to the content of the proposed regulation, there are two key issues. First, its legal base – Art. 175 (Environment) allows member states to impose stricter rules than EU law demands, whereas art. 95 (Internal Market) does not allow this flexibility. Second whether the focus should be on bans or on containment. The Commission proposal of August 2003 largely reflected the wishes of the F-gas lobby on these two key issues:
• Article 95 (Internal Market) was decided to be the legal base.
• The focus of the proposal was on containment, using a Dutch model for handling F-gases, rather than on phase outs of F-gases (except for some uses that are emissive by nature, and HFC134a in car air conditioning).
According to Anderson, the working group did not really discuss the legal base. “Industry always advocated the legal base to be art. 95, while NGOs at first focused on getting ambitious legislation – but the resulting weak ambition and art. 95 was the combination industry was aiming for”. The Commission’s choice for art. 95 seems illogical as primary aim of the F-gas regulation is to combat climate change. Peter Horrocks of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment described the choice of art. 95 as a “political compromise”. According to a parliamentary advisor of the Greens, other sources in the Environment Directorate suggested that the demand for art. 175 as the legal base was the result of horse-trading with DG Enterprise. Greenpeace reports that former Environment Commissioner Wallström was forced by the rest of the Commission to accept the art. 95 as a legal base; “or else she would get no legislation at all”.
On the bans vs. containment debate, Anderson sums up the result from the working group as: “NGOs wanted containment and phase-outs. Industry wanted containment. So the Commission said ‘everyone agrees on containment, that’s enough,’ even though that was clearly the minor part of the NGO agenda.” He believes that during the period between Spring 2001, the end of the working group discussions, and Summer 2003, the adoption of the Commission proposal, “[the] industry probably did an effective lobby”. Anderson published an extensive critique of the final report of the working group, arguing that the report not always “accurately reflected all the views expressed” and “characterises consensus where no consensus was reached”. He points to a clear lack of data in some cases, where in other cases “reliable data was ignored by opposing industries”. On alternatives, he notes that, “Alternatives have not only been too little considered, the language referring to them is consistently biased in a negative way”.
Once the Commission finalised its proposal, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament took over the process. The first reading at the Parliament ended in March 2004 and brought no fundamental changes to the Commission proposal. However, in October 2004, the Environment Council of Ministers (the Member States) reached a political agreement, which decided to split the proposal into two: a Directive on emissions from mobile air conditioning, and a Regulation which covers the rest. The Council decided on a dual legal base for the Regulation: Internal Market and Environment. In another area, to EPEE’s great relief, the list of possible bans was not extended, despite requests by the governments of Austria and Denmark for such bans.
PARLIAMENT: NEW THREATS, NEW ALLIES AND CLOSED LUNCHES
After the summer break of 2005, Parliament is once again holding the playing cards. Following 2004’s Parliamentary elections, and the enlargement of the EU with ten new Member States, the political landscape has changed and new positions have been taken. To the surprise of many, the new rapporteur on this issue, Christian-Democrat MEP Avril Doyle (Ireland) is proposing art. 175 (Environment) as the single legal base for the F-gas Regulation. She has also tabled an amendment to include an additional ban on F-gases in home refrigerators. The single legal base art. 175 is supported by shadow rapporteur Liberal Chris Davies (UK).
Since the F-gas proposal has been split in two, the Parliament Legal Service has insisted that art. 175 should be the legal base for the F-gas Regulation. Yet, the European Commission’s DG Environment has not changed its position. Doyle’s proposals are a serious threat to EPEE’s ambitions. It has stepped up its lobbying activity directed at MEPs and designed to ensure they refrain from fundamentally amending the proposal. As the EPEE newsletter states, the group aims to “ensure that the achievements made at first reading are not jeopardised during second reading”.
With such positions taken by both the new rapporteur and shadow rapporteur, the EPEE has worked hard to find other allies. Liberal MEP Holger Krahmer (ALDE) was prepared to host a closed lunch lobby meeting for the EPEE on September 14 2005, following the F-gas discussion in the EP’s Environment Committee.
The lunch was attended by a number of MEPs and commission officials from DG Environment and DG Enterprise. Despite Krahmer’s enthusiastic personal slogan ‘To make Europe more Transparent’, a Greenpeace representative was at first refused to attend. Only after another MEP intervened, Greenpeace was grudgingly allowed in. Mahi Sideridou (Greenpeace): “Again, the industry gentlemen there were saying ‘no’ to absolutely everything – no to art. 175, no to additional bans. They used the case of the Ozone Depleting Substance Regulation, which is based on art. 175, as a disastrous example of allowing for flexibility in Member States.” Her point of view, on the contrary, is that the right for Member States to take stronger measures to combat ozone depleting substances has delivered vital results in the EU fight against ozone depletion, and has had a global market knock-on effect. The fact that MEPs attending the EPEE lobby lunch were served this specific example, could not contrast more with EPEE’s self created pro ozone protection image.
LOBBYISTS FILLING THE INFORMATION VOID?
Members of the European Parliament often complain about the lack of time and resources to collect the information necessary to make good judgements about highly technical issues. Quoted recently in the ‘European Voice’, MEP Hartmut Nassauer, points out that at EU level, in contrast to the national level, “there is no government or administrative body linked to the European Parliament so when there is an important directive such as the REACH chemicals legislation, it is important that there are lobbyists who have relevant knowledge”. MEP Chris Davies, shadow rapporteur on the F-gas regulation, confirms that much of the information that comes to him is provided by lobbyists. In his view, the producers of alternatives to F-gases have not been lobbying nearly as strongly. However, the Parliament Environment Committee has rightly not been influenced by this imbalance of information. In its last vote, demands for additional bans were accepted, as well as for a single legal base Art. 175.
THE GRAND FINALE
On 11 October 2005, members of the Parliament’s Environment Committee proved unconvinced by persistent industry lobbying against F-gas phase-outs. Support was given to phase-outs in domestic refrigeration (four years after the entry into force), in commercial refrigeration (by 2010), in air conditioning (by 2010), in all foams (by 2009), aerosols (by 2006), as well as in trace gases (by 2006). There is a proposal to ban SF6 – the most potent of all F-gases – in all but one appliance (by 2008). Moreover, the Committee chose for a single legal base ‘Environment’ (art. 175), which would allow Denmark and Austria to keep their existing bans and allow other countries to do the same in the future. Before the vote, rapporteur Doyle dismissed complaints that a single legal base art. 175 would disturb the internal market. “With respect, industry’s protests are nonsense. We employ a legal opinion and we should listen to our legal opinion”, she said. The Parliament Committee also agreed to support fiscal incentives for producers of alternatives. In an internal note, Hill & Knowlton consultant Mary. B. Walsh reports to the EPEE members that “[…] the overall result is not good for EPEE with the Committee having accepted a single environmental legal base as well as a the full range of use bans affecting the Various RAC appliances as proposed”. And: “This means we have our work cut out for us to get the wider Membership of the parliament to move against the position as adopted by the environment committee.”
DG ENTERPRISE LAST MINUTE ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE F-GAS REGULATION?
In its final stages, the F-gas Regulation has become a target of the “better regulation” campaign of Commissioners Verheugen (DG Enterprise) and Barroso (President). This means that the F-gas directive has been put on the list of legislative proposals, published 27 September 2005, for which a reassessment on the economic impact on business is required. Given the advanced stage that the F-gas Regulation has reached in terms of a decision point, even DG Environment is left wondering what motivation has included it in this list.
Ironically, the double No vote to the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands, is being used in support of this deregulation drive. It is claimed that the populations in both countries would have rejected the Constitution foremost because they want ‘less Brussels bureaucracy’. Despite clear messages that many people, instead, want a green and social Europe, Barroso and Verheugen presented a list of ‘absurd’ laws to be slashed, and reassessment demands for other regulatory initiatives that might bring additional costs to industry.
Corporate Europe Observatory filed an ‘access to information’ request to DG Enterprise, asking access to all communication and meetings between Commissioner Verheugen and DG Enterprise on the one hand, and business groups on the other, in the context of the establishment of this ‘better regulation’ list. The European Commission replied that no such communication or meetings had taken place. After some weeks of uncertainty, it is now clear that the legislative process of the F-gas regulation will not be delayed because of the economic assessment.
In the days before the decisive European Parliament vote, Hill & Knowlton is co-ordinating the EPEE fight back. An internal EPEE document describes in detail which lobbying action is to be taken by which EPEE representatives, towards MEPs, the Commission and the Member States. Mary Walsh of Hill & Knowlton writes:
“[we] need to do all in our power to ensure the negative amendment don’t get a majority of 367” The leaked document gives a unique insight into the multi-faceted lobbying offensive orchestrated by Hill & Knowlton on behalf of its corporate clients.
LEEKED EPEE STRATEGY
• Towards the ‘Trialogue’ meeting between the European Commission, Parliament and Council, Hill & Knowlton will compile a list with “input against each ban”, that will the basis of all lobbying by EPEE members. Hill & Knowlton will set up meetings with ‘critical MEPs’ to “ to influence the voting list across the political group and nation positions.”
• In the Environment Committee, the aim is “finding friends who can put doubt on results on critical bans and legal base amendments and carry the message to wider parliament” Chairman Florenz (EPP, Germany) will be targeted specifically by CEFIC.
• The Parliament Industry Committee on the other hand, is labelled as a ‘natural ally’, and key players from this Committee are to be mobilised to “advocate to wider membership”.
• Also&in the Internal Market and Legal Affairs Committees, Trade Committee and EUAUS delegation, MEPs are selected to be contacted.
• There is still consideration to try and “get a political group or group of MEPs to table any plenary amendments.” To influence the Commission, Hill Knowlton will contact the Cabinets of Dimas (Environment) and Barroso (President) to “ensure steady on legal base”.
• ‘NC’ (CEO: most likely referring to Nick Campbell, of Atofina Total, EFCTC, and CEFIC) will talk more to DG Environment, and there is “ongoing contact with DG Enterprise”.
• As for the Member States, the EPEE says: “Calm panic ahead of COREPER (CEO: Permanent Representatives Committee) meeting. Ensure favourable national governments more active in briefing”. The ‘favourable’ national governments will be “pushed” to “brief national MEPs ahead of plenary vote to ensure fully informed and well thought out vote”.
•Notably, the last minute strategy of EPEE should include an “overarching consideration to push SMEs argumentations as part of EPEE approach – important these and SMS member are brought to the fore in the lobbying”; despite the nearly complete absence of SMEs in EPEE membership [.]
• The broad message will “call into doubt the Committee approach as a whole” (CEO: Committee must mean the EP Environment Committee), argumentation on each ban will be developed, and the legal base argumentation will be “reworked to short crisp statement”. Daikin suggests an emphasis that varying positions of Member States will “slow down the development of ecologically sound alternatives”. The fact that the F-gas lobby succeeded in effectively gaining control of the initial phases of EU decision-making is a stark and concerning example of policy capture by vested interests. The lack of clear rules for the establishment of European Commission working groups and advisory committees has contributed to this situation. Balanced representation of all stakeholders should be ensured, as well as safeguards against policy capture. Improving transparency is no less crucial. As it is now, democratic scrutiny of the Commission’s decision-making processes is impossible.
These two steps, rules for a fair political process and transparency, are imperative in order give decision-makers and the public a real chance to judge to what extent the Commission fulfils its role ofsmaking proposals in the common European interest.sMore generally, EU decision-making around the regulation of F-gases has suffered due to the hidden nature of lobbying activities. Mandatory registration and disclosure of lobbying expenditure – as sproposed by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) – would reveal who is lobbying whom, on what issue and with what budgets.
In the case of F-gases, this would have given MEPs some insight into the financial resources pushing competing technical viewpoints. It would also clarify the financial interests and the role of PR/PA firms in lobbying platforms like the EPEE. And it would have revealed just how much money the F-gas producers have invested in preventing a phase-out of their climate-destroying products, compared to the far smaller amounts at the disposal of pro-environment lobbyists as well as the producers of less harmful refrigerating gases. The annual turnover of corporate lobbying in Brussels is estimated to be between 750 million euro and one billion euro. This far outweighs the budgets available to public interest NGOs, trade unions, small businesses and others trying to prevent commercial interests from capturing and dominating the EU decision-making.
CSR CLAIMS VERSUS LOBBYING STRATEGIES
The lobbying battle around the EU’s F-gas regulation is an example of industry being divided.
On the one side major F-gas producers teamed up to prevent any phase-outs. They had the most to loose. On the other side, only a few of the producers of alternative refrigerants were actively involved. Users of F-gases are often able to switch, but are looking at economic benefits for switching to balance the costs.
Those corporations wanting to prevent a phase-out of their products and a fast transition to environmentally friendly alternatives for refrigerating gases, invested far more resources in a lobbying effort to shape EU regulations in their interest. Indeed for a while, it looked as though they would be successful. The coming weeks will show whether these companies will get away with this attempt to subvert the EU’s decision-making process. Regardless of the outcome, however, the companies involved should be held accountable to the role they have played in this lobbying offensive.
Some EPEE members are corporations with a carefully nurtured green image. Solvay and Dupont continuously claim to be committed to ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). Visitors to the Solvay websites, will find a site dedicated to Sustainable Development, and can read about how the company is a “responsible citizen that pays taxes, contributes added value and sustainability to the community and shares its expertise and skills”. They will not, however, find any mention of the company’s engagement in the EPEE and the attempt to prevent a phase-out of F-gases. Dupont is even more eager to portray itself as a frontrunner in ‘corporate social responsibility’ and has for instance joined the Global Compact, the UN’s voluntary initiative “to promote good corporate citizenship”.
The financial and other support of these companies for the EPEE’s lobbying to weaken the EU’s F-gas regulation is a clear case of a mismatch between CSR claims and lobbying strategies. Lobbying transparency obligations would help increase the public scrutiny of the CSR images designed by these corporations and disencourage inconsistent lobbying.
Fluorinated gases (F-gases, HFCs) were pushed onto the market as replacements for CFCs, which caused ozone depletion and were in the process of being banned. However, F-gases are highly potent greenhouse gases. F-gases are, and increasingly will be, in most cases replaceable by environmentally friendly alternatives like hydrocarbons. [water & CO2]. ]But multinationals like DuPont and Honeywell are determined not to give up their globally expanding F-gas business. Their lobby groups in Washington, the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP) effectively used the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) as a platform to oppose F-gas bans by individual EU member states, and to influence the currently debated F-gas Regulation from the very start of the drafting process.
To make it look like a genuine ‘European’ lobby with an environmental focus, ARI founded the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). Public Affairs company Hill & Knowlton was hired to run the EPEE lobbying campaign. The EPEE is the European version of the ARAP. The ARAP was founded to defend the interests of CFC producers like DuPont, that at first strongly opposed the ban of CFCs. Now, the ARAP and EPEE alike, fiercely promote F-gases for their non-ozone depleting qualities, while downplaying their global warming impact. The original European Commission proposal reflected the privileged access that the F-gas industry had to the Commission before the drafting process started, and industry’s dominating voice within the Commission’s working group on fluorinated gases. Producers of alternatives to F-gases and environmental NGOs were highly under-represented. The F-gas Regulation is now in the final phase of the second reading at the European Parliament. The EPEE is targeting Members of European Parliament (MEPs), but also the Commission and the Member States, in an ultimate attempt to prevent important changes that would allow for more bans on F-gases and have been proposed by the Environment Committee of the Parliament. These changes threaten much of the F-gas industry’s earlier lobbying achievements. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton. At EU level, there is a great need for transparency rules for lobbying in order to facilitate public scrutiny over important decision-making processes. At this moment, such transparency is virtually nonexistent.
1. For EUA15, that is cutting greenhouse gases to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
2. A commonly used refrigerant for example, HFC134-a, contributes 1,300 times more to global warming than CO2 and stays in the atmosphere for over 14 years. Other HFCs reach levels of 6,000 to 10,000 GWP, while SF6 has a GWP of nearly 24,000! High Global Warming Potential Gases, information sheet of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
3. Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September 2004.
4. European Climate Change Programme, Report– June 2001
5. Examples are ammonia, CO2 and hydrocarbons. Propane, a hydrocarbon, for example has a direct GWP of less than 3 compared with HFCA134a 13,000 (over 100 years) and an atmospheric lifetime of months as opposed to 15 years.
6. Greenfreeze–A Revolution In Domestic Refrigeration, Greenpeace, September 1997.
8. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, 2003/1089 (COM), European Commission, 11 August 2003.
9. Art. 95, Internal Market, instead of art. 175, Environment.
10. DuPont and Zhonghao Finalise HFC Refrigerant Joint Venture, March 2004.
11. Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September 2004.
12. The age of hydrocarbon refrigerants has arrived, Idaho Observer, April 2002.
13. “It appears that the European Parliament is willing to enact discriminatory non-tariff trade barriers to US products under the guise of environmental protection”, Dave Lewis quoted in Alliance Calls on US Government to Oppose European HFC Equipment Ban, ARAP press release, March 2004.
14. Some European associations like AREA (an association representing refrigeration and air conditioning installers) declare to be EPEE member, although they are not on the EPEE membership list.
15. Members are: DuPont, Ineos Fluor, Arkema, Solvay Fluor and Honeywell.
17. The ARI is not only a ‘founding member’ of EPEE, but also EPEE newsletters can be found on the ARI website, as well as dates of EPEE meetings in Brussels. The ARI members are encouraged to become member of EPEE.
18. The ARAP board of directors includes people from DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Carrier, Copeland, Maytag, INEOS, Solvay, York International, General Electric and ATOFINA.
19. Many example can be found on the website of Source Watch
20. See also TABD in Troubled Water, CEO Briefing, October 2001.
21. Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.
22. TABD Special Issue, EABC Newsletter, October 1999. On file with Corporate Europe Observatory.
23. See the overview of national government action on the website of the Multisectorial Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse gases
24. Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute newsletter, Koldfax, Vol.&27,Nr. 12, December 2000. On file with Corporate Europe Obse rvatory. See also TABD in Troubled Water, CEO Issue Briefing, October 2001.
25. This location is also home to PR/PA company Burson Marsteller, see also House of Mirrors; Burson-Marsteller Brussels lobbying for the bromine industry, Corporate Europe Observatory, January 2005.
26. If you look at it from the Hill Knowlton perspective, running EPEE brings the additional benefit of having three extra lobbyists (Philipp Bruchert, Marc Limon, Mary B. Walsh) accredited at the European Parliament on top of the five currently registered as Hill Knowlton lobbyists.
27. See the overview of clients on the Hill Knowlton website.
28. David Stirpe of Alcalde Fay serves as the Executive Director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Kevin Fay is ‘special&counsel’ to the ARAP, and ran the former ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’.
29. EPEE submission to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological
Advice (SBSTA) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 27 February 2002.
31. The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, J. Masters, Chief Meteorologist,The Weather Underground, Inc.
32. The+Hole+in+the+Sky, John Gribbin, Bantam Books, New York, 1988.
33. About Us, ARAP website, checked October 2005.
34. The phase out of CFCs was never a major problem to these companies, even a benefit. Investments in more specialised, higher cost HCFCs had already been made, and the Montreal Protocol forced consumers into those substitutes.
35. Is STEK as good as reported? Institute for European Environmental Policy, June 2005.
36. Transatlantic Business Dialogue concerned about trade barriers, May 2001.
37. The capture of standards by the F-gas industry, Chris Rose for MIPIGGS, 2002.
38. CEO finally obtained the working group participants list from CAN Europe. Parliament staff confirms that the Parliament is not informed in a structural manner of the composition or deliberations of such Commission working groups, that have the opportunity to greatly influence new proposals.
39. Then called Climate Network Europe, CNE.
40. Telephone conversation with Jason Anderson, formerly working for CAN (then CNE).
41. Telephone conversation with Peter Horrocks, September 2005.
42. Personal conversation with Mahi Sideridou, Greenpeace, June&2005.
43. NGO comments on the draft final report of the ECCP Industry sub-working group on Fluorinated gases, 25 April 2001, published by CAN Europe.
44. Telephone conversation with Mahi Sideridou, September 2005.
45. EPEE news, June 2004.
46. Doyle, Davies, Florenz, Prodi, Jackson, Drčar Murko, Brepoels, Weisgerber, Krahmer.
48. E-mail from Mahi Sideridou, 11 October 2005.
49. MEPs ratchet up planned EU curbs on F-gases, Environment Daily 1959, 11/10/05.
50. Internal EPEE note by Mary Walsh (Hill Knowlton / EPEE), 11 October 2005.
51. Telephone conversation with Peter Horrocks, DG Environment, 6 October 2005.
52. E-mail from Mrs. Viviane Andre, DG Enterprise, 6 October 2005.
53. Fluorinated gases and climate change, Eur-active dossier.
54. Internal EPEE note composed by Mary Walsh, Hill Knowlton, seen by CEO.
55. This document confirms the active participation in EPEE of the ARI, the ARAP, and the JRAIA (the Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association).
56. Contacts to be followed up are listed as follows:“Doyle/Davies (?)/
Jackson/Sonik/Trakatellis/Wijkman/ Roth Behrendt/McAvan/
Linemann/ Tzampazi/ Sormosa Martinez / Whitehead/ Maaten / Prodi”.
57. For Internal Market: Whitehead, Newton Dunn, Rizzo; for Legal Affairs: Garganis, Lehne,Lopez-Isturiez, Wallis.
58. However,a stronger national regulatory approach, especially in combination with economic incentives, can create a very beneficial environment for SMEs.
59. See www.alterAeu.org
60. “A spoonful of sugar makes the message go down”, European+Voice, Vol.
11. No. 33 : 22 September 2005.
62. Towards&sustainable&development 2004A2008, Solvay, 2004.
63. www.unglobalcompact.org Source:
Sanden Hot Water Heat Pump and air conditioners use
industry-leading technology – Ozone friendly refrigerant R744 (CO2)
- FLUORIDATION QUEENSLANDOctober 13, 2016 - 10:16 pm
- Fluoride, Brain Biochemistry and Violent Crime – Rodger D. MastersFebruary 12, 2017 - 9:41 am
- Fluoridation – New Research PapersOctober 29, 2016 - 6:33 am
- Fluoridation – Our Rogues GalleryOctober 16, 2016 - 8:53 am
- Michael Foley Fluoride Fan Club +September 22, 2016 - 1:25 pm