I now have evidence that printed copies of my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, are being shipped by the Publisher, Stairway Press. So the book is now available in all four formats in which it is being offered through the book website.
Stairway Press has informed me that their printing problems have been resolved and printed copies of my book are expected to reach them in about a week. Copies can be ordered from the book Webpage. Printed copies will reach other sellers shortly after that. My understanding is that the Kindle eBook version has been available for over a week.
I have just been informed by the Publisher, Stairway Press, that the printed versions of my new book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, have experienced printing delays and probably will not be available until Mid-May in the case of the black and white version and May 25 for the color version. Orders can continue to be placed through the book Website, but apparently the books will not actually be shipped until then. The Kindle eBook version, however, is currently available. I hope this delay in the printed versions does not cause inconvenience for any of the buyers, but I fear it is a little beyond my control.
New Book Provides Insights on a Number of Public Policy Issues Besides Radical Climate EnvironmentalismAlan Carlin | April 26, 2015
Although my new book, entitled Environmentalism Gone Mad, primarily concerns radical climate environmentalism, it contains new material on a number of other public and environmental policy issues which I have been involved with, including the following:
- The Cold War controversy over the adequacy of US strategic nuclear weapons (found in Chapter 2).
- Economic development of West New Guinea and India (Chapters 2 and 3).
- The Sierra Club’s successful campaign to prevent the construction of two dams in the Grand Canyon in the 1960s (Chapter 3).
- The internal Sierra Club controversy over the construction of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California (Chapter 3).
- The internal Sierra Club politics that led to the departure of David Brower as Executive Director (Chapter 3).
- Why airline passengers subsidize corporate jets at busy airports.(Chapter 3).
- How Los Angeles ended up building a light rail transit system (Chapter 3).
- Why good economics and science provide a far better basis for pollution control regulation than environmental ideology (Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12).
- How EPA is pursuing overly restrictive and expensive controls on air pollution as well as on CO2 (Chapter 11), and
- The economics of wind and solar power (Chapters 10, 11, and 12).
Stairway Press expects to publish my new book entitled Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy on April 28. A description of the book and its contents is available on a Website devoted to the book as well as links for ordering it in various formats. The book is intended for a general audience and contains over 635 pages.
Cover of book (click to enlarge)
After explaining my lifelong efforts to promote environmental protection, the book recounts my personal journey of discovery into the climate issue, and explains why I believe that the environmental movement is pursuing a green energy fantasy, why a major course correction is needed to bring it back to reality, and how that might be achieved. The book also has extensive discussions of the economics, science, and politics involved as well as the role played by some of the major groups pushing reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide.
If the book is ordered from Stairway Press (but not from other sources), readers will also receive a computer disk containing four appendices totaling 325 pages of more technical and historical interest. The book and the appendices contain extensive references for those interested in the extensive literature used in their preparation.
As a result of my award acceptance remarks for the 2014 Climate Change Whistleblower Award I received at the July, 2014 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) sponsored by the Heartland Institute and other co-sponsors, I was recently interviewed by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. The resulting interchange provides additional background concerning my remarks and was as follows:
Taylor: What were your main arguments against EPA’s Endangerment Finding, as presented in your comments?
Carlin: I made three main points in my comments to EPA on the draft Technical Support Document (TSD), the technical basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. These were: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is invalid from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC’s reports. My full comments can be found at http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1
Taylor: You say EPA used bad science in its Endangerment finding. Do you believe EPA simply but honestly drew the wrong conclusions, or do you believe EPA had ulterior motives?
Carlin: In my view, the arrival of the Obama administration in 2009 resulted in political decisions in the White House on climate science being imposed on EPA rather than EPA relying on its own independent analysis as in most previous decisions. The new EPA political appointees involved in climate policy were apparently screened on the basis of their views on climate policy. EPA career employees generally believed any attempt to oppose CAGW would very likely result in unfavorable personnel or organizational changes by the new EPA administration. Most career employees were primarily interested in protecting their jobs and bureaucratic roles by accepting or at least not opposing the politically determined science imposed by the White House.
Taylor: Based on your experience in EPA, what percent of EPA staffers are open-minded and committed to honest science, and what percent are driven by ideology or environmental extremism?
Carlin: All the new Obama political appointees supported the EPA’s proposed Endangerment Finding and the TSD supporting the science on which it was based. A few of the more recent career hires clearly believed the radical environmentalist ideology and strongly supported the CAGW-based finding, and the rest either had no opinion or kept quiet about any concerns they might have had.
Taylor: You used to be very active with the Sierra Club. What motivated you to do this, and why did you subsequently stop being active with the group?
Carlin: In the 1960s and early 1970s, when I was active in the Sierra Club as an environmental activist and elected Chapter Chairman, the Club supported improving the environment and appeared to be open to using both good science and economics in support of its objectives. With a colleague, I contributed to the Club’s campaign to prevent the construction of two dams in the Grand Canyon by preparing economic analyses, for example. I dropped out of any active involvement when I accepted a senior position at EPA after it was formed in 1970. EPA at that time discouraged active involvement in organizations taking an activist role concerning what it regulates.
Taylor: You mentioned in your ICCC-9 speech that an environmental activist group—the Natural Resources Defense Council—wrote the blueprint for EPA’s recently proposed power plant carbon dioxide restrictions. Why should it bother people that EPA works so closely with environmental activist groups?
Carlin: I believe EPA’s job is to reduce harmful pollution where this reflects good science, economics, and law, and to negotiate the best possible compromises between the interest groups involved to achieve this. Responding only to the regulated community or only to the environmental activists does not result in such compromises. Following a script written by an environmental organization, as EPA is apparently now doing with respect to power plants, is thus not a useful approach since it prevents EPA from making a useful contribution of its own since it is just responding to what one side wants.
Taylor: Your ICCC-9 presentation mentioned a book you have written on all this. What is the title, and when will it be available?
Carlin: The book is called Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Former Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy. [Note added April, 2015: The book is now available for purchase through the Website for the book.] Besides a much more detailed discussion of all the issues raised by your questions, the book explores the ideological inconsistencies, practical problems, and likely outcomes resulting from the rise of radical energy environmentalism from scientific, economic, governmental, journalistic, and legal viewpoints. These problems have arisen because the environmental movement has been hijacked by left-wing radicals who are advocating policies that impair the Western world’s economic future for no or even negative environmental gains and promoting legally questionable government actions whose purpose government cannot achieve in the way proposed. The book explores why their campaign may lead to regulatory strangulation of the economy through control of energy generation and use, and threatens the rule of law. It is the threat to the rule of law that is the real danger, not the alleged adverse effects of increasing CO2 levels. The book is expected to be published later this year. Information on it will be available on [this] website … as publication approaches.
On July 8 I received the 2104 Climate Science Whistleblower Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute and other cosponsoring organizations held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The following are remarks I prepared for my acceptance statement:
I greatly appreciate receiving this award and for the efforts of the many people involved at many levels in making the award possible. I consider it a great honor and thank you for it. I wrote my negative comments on the Endangerment Finding support document because I believed EPA was using bad science and that EPA’s proposed Endangerment Finding would be easier to stop at that stage than later. But it is very encouraging to find that others agree with my decision to do so, which EPA clearly did not.
My offending comments to EPA led to my being immediately muzzled at the same time that Obama was spinning his transparency and scientific integrity line. The Endangerment Finding was issued later that year without any of my suggested changes in the support document, of course. This finding is the legally definitive EPA statement on climate science. It has been tested in the courts and is legally no longer an issue; this is what I hoped to avoid by my challenge to the support document.
For the last few years I have been working on a book-length manuscript describing everything touched on here and much more, including my skeptic efforts, how the environmental movement lost its way since my days as a Sierra Club activist and leader, and the main legal, journalistic, governmental, scientific, environmental, and economic aspects of the climate issue. This manuscript [published in April, 2015, and titled Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy is now available from the book Website] is now complete and up-to-date. If any of you know a good way to get it published so that it will be read, please let me know since I think it has some vital messages for everyone as we approach the showdown over the proposed EPA regulations.
The Endangerment Finding led directly to EPA’s proposed regulations for reducing CO2 emissions from power plants earlier this year. The new EPA proposed regulations are even worse than I expected in 2009, perhaps because the blueprint for them was actually written by an environmental organization. First of all, they are illegal, as per any reasonable reading of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. They impose many aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill despite Congress’ rejection of it, and try to force red states to adopt the usual market-distorting preferences for power generation promoted by radical environmentalists. The regulations will have major adverse effects on the US economy, all for no or more likely negative benefits, and will result in higher costs for electric ratepayers, with particularly adverse effects on lower income groups. They will also lead to potentially extremely costly electric grid instability and load shedding when electric power is most needed. EPA is effectively trying to rewrite the Clean Air Act without consulting Congress or observing the law or the Constitution.
John Boehner calls Obama’s behavior in this and other areas “aggressive unilateralism;” I call it dictatorial. Even if EPA’s science were correct, which it is not, the regulations should be rejected on the basis of EPA’s illegal power grab. I believe that skeptics need to place greater emphasis on this aspect of the situation. The powers of the Presidency have been an issue since the founding of the Republic and are much more readily understood than climate science will ever be.
So what started out as a scientific issue concerning a proposed Endangerment Finding has now escalated into a major legal and even Constitutional issue concerning Presidential powers. The President roams the country calling us “flat-earthers” and science-deniers. Perhaps it is time to characterize his behavior as illegal and even dictatorial.
Currently the public favors the EPA regulations by 67 to 29 percent so there appear to be many possible recipients for better information if we are to succeed in avoiding the future that radical environmentalists want to impose on our country through unjustified Federal intervention in still another vital sector of the economy. If their efforts should succeed, we can reasonably look forward to much higher levels of mandated CO2 reductions in this sector and probably many others as well. It is better to stop this mission creep now before it metastasizes even further.
We must not fail for the sake of the country’s economic and environmental future and the preservation of the rule of law. These new power plant regulations will happen unless a way is found to stop them. There are only three possible ways to do this: A president who will withdraw them, Republican control of both houses of Congress, or rejection by the courts. Obama will not willingly withdraw the regulations before he leaves office in 2017. Rejection by the courts has not proved a dependable strategy to date, but the proposals are becoming increasingly outrageous legally. Congress is the only somewhat dependable avenue in the near term, and there is an election in 2014. A number of environmental groups are already very hard at work trying to influence this election so as to promote their proposed EPA regulations. They have already even sent me two thinly disguised such appeals, probably because I live in a state with a Democratic senator up for reelection!
EPA’s New Proposed Regulations to Restrict Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Based Electric GenerationAlan Carlin | June 2, 2014
Today is the day when EPA unveils its regulations intended to solve a minor or more likely non-existent problem by placing restrictive government regulations intended to bias the electric supply business away from seeking the lowest cost source of energy (often coal) at the expense of all American ratepayers, but particularly lower and middle income Americans. As outlined on this blog for over four years there is no reason for EPA or any other government agency to impose such controls. They will have no measurable effects on anything other than the US economy. What will happen as a result is quite predictable: Greatly increased rates for electric power, decreased availability of the electric power so vital to our way of life, decreased reliability of the electric grid, a lower standard of living, decreased competitiveness of US products in world markets since most countries do not have such regulations, and Communist-style central control of the electric generating industry by a Washington-based bureaucracy with no understanding of the industry.
Fortunately, there is an election coming up this fall where voters can express their views on the Obama Administration’s proposal to take effective control over the electric power industry despite their less than sterling performance on health care and veterans’ medical needs. Apparently nothing short of an electoral defeat will prevent the Administration from pursuing its green energy ideology/religion. What is required is a Republican majority in the US Senate if these regulations are to be stopped. Electing Democrats who claim they are opposed to the new EPA regulations will do very little if anything to prevent them from coming into effect since the Democrats would still control the US Senate and would be able to circumvent any effort to kill the EPA regulations.
It is important to note that the EPA proposals are not only attempts to circumvent Congress and the provisions of the Clean Air Act but also the separation of powers enshrined in the US Constitution. The separation of powers were built into the Constitution for a reason–to keep ideologues of any persuasion from being able to impose their views on the nation merely by controlling one branch of Government. The new EPA proposed rules are not based on any act of Congress but rather on an outrageous rewriting of the Clean Air Act by EPA on the basis of green ideology with all its bad science, bad economics and bad law. This is a direct outcome of the Endangerment Finding I opposed in 2009–and unfortunately about the worst possible outcome. Unless voters act this fall it may too late to avoid this outcome, which will directly affect the economic well being of all Americans with no benefits whatever except for those that will profit from it, like windmill and solar manufacturers.
The annexation of Crimea by Russia has brought into focus an important aspect of the climate change debate. The US and the EU are trying to respond to the Russian annexation by using totally ineffective sanctions. Putin must be laughing at our pathetic response. The Russians are already threatening other parts of Ukraine. If successful, they may well go after other lost Eastern European territories. Experience during the 1980s, however, shows that Russia will respond to pressure on its lifeblood (oil and natural gas exports). That’s how they lost Ukraine and other former territories in the first place.
If the US had really pushed shale gas and oil hard in recent years–like opening up Federal lands, getting rid of the harmful export controls on both of them, and pushing new pipelines and LNG exports–the US would now actually be able to offer effective economic sanctions. By flooding the world with cheap natural gas and not so cheap but plentiful shale oil the US could now hurt the Russians by reducing their oil and gas revenue. But if both the US and EU had really pushed shale oil and gas, the US and the EU might actually have been able to to use sanctions to directly reduce buying of Russian oil and gas, which could have resulted in considerable economic damage to Russia. But since this was not done, such measures would currently greatly damage Western Europe, which has been frightened by environmentalists into generally avoiding fracking to increase shale gas and oil output.
But better late than never. Many environmental organizations have gone on record as opposing fracking, favoring keeping “our nation’s fossil fuel reserves in the ground,” and now opposing the approved LNG export Cove Point (and presumably any other LNG export) project. LNG is the only way the US can economically export natural gas outside North America. Yet it could still be an explicit and tangible threat to Russia’s lifeblood that would influence their actions in Eastern Europe. As Strassel points out, it is time for the Obama Administration to abandon its environmental supporters and take immediate and very visible actions to at least support LNG exports. Even the Washington Post agrees with regard to LNG exports, but of course fails to point out the “environmental” reasons why the Administration is presumably holding back.
The continuing resistance of environmental groups to the use of fracking and now LNG exports is getting in the way of important US national security interests. The Administration needs to clearly and openly disown the environmentalists on shale gas development on Federal and private land and LNG exports and let Russia understand that their actions are the reason. It needs to do the same on shale oil as well by encouraging development on Federal lands and approving new oil pipelines but that may be asking too much.
Updated November 14, 2013
On April 18, 2013 Professor Murry Salby, a widely respected astrophysicist and textbook author on atmospheric physics from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, delivered a devastating critique of the IPCC’s AGW climate science in a lecture in Hamburg, Germany:
This appears to be a much more comprehensive presentation of some of his conclusions included in an earlier presentation. The video from the new lecture was made available on YouTube in April 2013. A report on a similar presentation made by Professor Salby in Edinburgh, Scotland on November 7, 2013 can be downloaded from here in PDF format. The report includes a one-page summary. The report is also available here in HTML format.
The Hamburg lecture announcement included the following overview:
“Atmospheric composition and temperature are found to obey a clear two-pronged relationship in the proxy record from ice cores, which represents ancient changes that operate on time scales longer than several thousand years. A similar relationship is found to be obeyed in the observed record of actual atmospheric measurements, which represents modern changes that operate on time scales shorter than a century. Supporting analysis shows that the two relationships are connected. It reveals a common physical mechanism behind changes of composition in the two records. The physics common to the records provides unified insight into recorded changes of greenhouse gases, those apparent in the proxy record of ancient composition as well as those actually observed during the 20th century. The governing relationship is then compared against the relationship that prevails in climate models, in their simulation of future changes.”
Salby concluded that anthropogenic emissions only have a slight impact on the global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that these concentrations are mainly a consequence of temperature changes. This relationship is known up to now only from the warming phases after recent ice ages. Prof. Salby extended this relationship to our current climate development. He concluded that the divergence between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures “over the last decade and a half is now unequivocal. In the models global temperature tracks CO2 almost perfectly. In the real world it clearly doesn’t.”
Salby then presented two charts for comparison, which when arranged side-by-side contrast the model world versus the real world: