Rep. Sensenbrenner’s claims about the emails that hackers stole from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University don’t match the facts.

First, these emails have nothing to do with “climate forecasts.” The emails that have received the most attention have to do with past temperature recorded by tree rings. This line of research has little bearing on our understanding of what causes global warming and the amount of future warming we should expect based on continuing to overload our atmosphere with heat-trapping emissions.

Second, “trick” and “hide the decline” are both references to techniques that were published in the open peer-reviewed scientific literature in 1998 and 1997 respectively. They represent valid scientific methods for making temperature records more accurate by 1) adding temperature measurements from meteorological stations to past climate records and 2) isolating the effect of some questionable data from Siberian tree rings that play an overall minor role in past temperature records. A more in-depth explanation, with links to both the scientific papers discussing these techniques is available on UCS’s Web site.

This is an excellent example of how cherry-picking phrases from stolen emails tells us nothing.

Third, Rep. Sensenbrenner says this doesn’t “undercut all climate science.” Let’s be clear. The stolen emails don’t undercut any climate science. This is a manufactured controversy. Even if CRU didn’t exist, there would be solid evidence that human activity is driving global warming and that continuing to dump excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be dangerous for us and for future generations. In fact, independent past temperature records from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japanese Meteorological Society are consistent with CRU’s global average temperature record since 1880.

There is no reason to delay acting on climate change in light of these emails. They are a distraction. When we look at the most recent science since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report, we see there is an even more urgent need to act. More carbon dioxide is going into the atmosphere than in previous years, the ocean is absorbing less of it and sea level rise is increasing faster than expected. Delaying our response to climate change would mean more warming, more economic damage from climate change and more difficulty in adequately reducing emissions.

No wonder then that 113 Wisconsin scientists recently wrote a letter (pdf) to Rep. Sensenbrenner’s colleagues in the Senate in which they said, “Policymakers have a clear choice: allow climate change to continue on its present path and cause serious longterm damage to Wisconsin’s population, natural resources and economy, or embrace an enlightened global warming solutions policy that will protect our air, water, land, and Great Lakes while spurring economic growth at home in Wisconsin.”

Finally, Rep. Sensenbrenner should strongly reconsider accusing scientists of “fascism.” Spreading such libel is irresponsible. The scientists involved are simply trying to learn more about the world around us. Attacking them by making false claims about the content of private communications that were illegally obtained and accusing them of things they didn’t do is wrong and dangerous.

In a previous post, I raised many of the same issues regarding funding. To finance global emissions reductions and avoidances at the level being talked about in these negotiations will mean a staggering and wholly unprecedented amount of wealth transfers from developed to developing countries. The $10 billion "starter" fund on offer isn't enough for the developing world--they want to move right to the main course. Adding a "0" would make it more appetizing.

But I'd like to take the Congressman's thought a step further. As we think about the scale and scope of the transformation in energy systems that would be necessary, we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to do what is needed not just in finance, but in many other areas no less critical.

For example, the International Energy Agency notes that to achieve a 50% global reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, we're looking at building 32 gigawatts of additional nuclear capacity--an amount that is 50% higher than the historical high--every year for 40 years. Are we prepared to do what it takes to achieve that globally?

Are we prepared to ensure that the infrastructure needed to transport and inject into geologic formations the carbon dioxide captured from coal plants can be built? Are we prepared to streamline regulations for plants enhanced using biotechnology to improve their use as a feedstock for biofuels or to reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture? Are we prepared to quicken the sitting and permitting requirements for transmissions lines so that wind power from the Upper Plains can be delivered to cities in the East? Are we prepared to eliminate the trade barriers on clean energy goods and services that disrupt international commerce in clean technologies?

We can't negotiate these types of issues away. The simple fact is achieving deep global emissions reductions will be extraordinarily difficult, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that it will be otherwise. Business needs a predictable environment in which to plan and operate, and we would welcome a new international agreement that is ambitious and realistic.

Of all the problems with Rep. Sensenbrenner’s post, here is the most fundamental:

Not acting on climate change comes with a price, and that price grows larger the longer we delay dealing with the problem. It may be convenient to ignore the costs of inaction, but narrow one-sided economic arguments do not make for sound policy. For us, or for our grandchildren.

Say your house has a weak foundation. A big fracture is growing wider and wider by the day. Cracks are appearing in the walls throughout the building. You bring in a team of top structural engineers to analyze the situation. They calculate that they can put in supports to stabilize the structure and repair the foundation, saving your house from complete collapse. Doing so would mean investing 1 to 2 percent of your annual income. You don’t like that analysis, so you bring in more and more teams of engineers and architects, but they all come to the same conclusion: Delay only means mounting bills. Act now or lose it all.

No, it’s not a perfect analogy to the climate situation. For one, if we miss our chance and allow climate change to spiral out of control, we can’t simply up and move to another home. Earth is our one shot. Yet we’re the ones enlarging the crack in the foundation.

Scientists and economists have made it clear that the costs of delay far exceed the investment needed now to move the world away from a polluting fossil-fuel based economy. (See for starters the review by former World Bank lead economist Sir Nicholas Stern; analysis by McKinsey showing that the costs of curbing climate change may be far smaller than we think; the latest findings of the International Energy Agency; and discussion of the economics conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

We cannot just wish away the future costs of climate change. If we do nothing, they will come. The U.S. intelligence and security communities acknowledge the extent of the climate threat (see National Intelligence Council’s Impacts of Climate Change analyses or the report by eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals). The investment in energy efficiency, clean energy, and forests needed to curb global warming is dwarfed by the astronomical costs of massive migration, crop failures, droughts, floods, heat waves, and wildfires that unchecked global warming would bring.

It is important to start with one basic premise - there is no mounting question over the science. That is absolutely clear. The only issue with the science is that continuing observational measurement of our planet only leads to the conclusion that action is necessary.

The U.S. deficit is mounting and the nation is becoming less competitive globally, in part, related to its high energy use. This is an issue the U.S. needs to address and, in doing so, deliver CO2 reductions.

This week the world's attention has been on Denmark, as the climate change talks take place in Copenhagen. Of the total energy used in Denmark, fossil fuels make up about the same proportion as they do in the U.S. and the ratio of coal-to-oil-to-gas within that is also about the same as the U.S. as well. Denmark is as dependent on coal as the U.S., yet its carbon footprint in terms of CO2 per GDP is about half that of the U.S. The people of Denmark are also nearly as well off as those in the United States - but they use about half the amount of energy as the U.S. to do the job. This makes the Danish economy very energy competitive, an important factor in a world of volatile energy prices.

Denmark has achieved all this through a long-term focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Combined heat and power is a feature of every Danish power station. The U.S. could do the same over the coming decade and achieve its CO2 goals, while at the same time making its economy more resilient and competitive. Yes, this will require investment, but it is investment with considerable financial return and environmental benefit.

At the same time it could accelerate the development of the next generation of energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage, advanced biofuels, hydrogen, solar and so on. These will all be essential technologies for the 2020's and beyond and could position the U.S. as a major energy technology exporter, as Denmark is a leading wind turbine exporter today. Partnering with major developing economies today also makes sense - it will help build the markets of tomorrow.

Rep. Sensenbrenner is right - a major deal in Copenhagen or a comparable domestic global warming bill would be all economic pain for no environmental gain. If President Obama wants to truly represent the interests of the American people, he would not sign onto an agreement with any real teeth.

The reality is that ratcheting down carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use would be prohibitively expensive. The citizens of none of the 192 nations represented here at Copenhagen really want this done to them. Not Americans, whose concern about global warming is waning while concern about the economy and jobs remains justifiably high. Not Europeans, whose actions put the lie to their words - many EU countries have failed to reduce emissions under the existing Kyoto Protocol but are arguing for tighter targets in Copenhagen. And certainly not the Chinese, Indians, and others from developing nations who insist on no binding reductions for themselves but expect to come away from Copenhagen with promises of massive foreign aid.

The last point makes the Copenhagen agenda an even lousier deal for the American people. In addition to a multi-trillion dollar energy tax (higher gasoline prices and electric bills, over a million net job losses), developing nations have demanded .5 to 1 percent of GDP in aid annually - 70 to 140 billion from the US to help them deal with global warming. Quite a price tag even in the best of economic times, but far worse given the lingering recession and 10 percent unemployment.

And for what? Climategate - the release of emails and other documents showing gross misconduct amongst some the key scientists responsible for the "official" UN science that was to be relied upon at Copenhagen - only adds to doubts that global warming really is an impending crisis. And even if it was, increased emissions from China would swamp any reductions undertaken by the US, no matter how costly.

Can the U.S. afford not to contribute to a climate mitigation fund?

Secretary of State Clinton has just announced her expectation that the private sector together with all of the developed countries should contribute to such a fund.

The world’s transition to a low carbon economy is good for business. The returns will surely far exceed the investment. The opportunities for Corporate America are truly extensive.

The drive for energy efficiency is central to President Obama’s climate policy. This will surely help to stimulate the economy and create millions of new jobs.

Regardless of the accuracy of the science, fossil fuels will eventually run out. Concerns about global warming have catalyzed world efforts to find new technologies, with the U.S. is at the forefront of this exciting innovation.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is calculating the costs in an old currency. The U.S. must invest in the future, for the benefit of energy security, the economy and the health of our planet.

If the U.S. is to remain a world leader, it surely has to step up to the plate.

The developing countries are indeed asking for huge sums in Copenhagen -- more than $100 billion to $200 billion annually to pay for their carbon mitigation and climate change adaptation through 2050! However, the United States can play an important role without adding to U.S. debt. As I maintained in a recent “Copenhagen Insider” blog for the National Journal, it is inconceivable that the governments of the industrialized world, including the United States, will come up with sufficient foreign aid to satisfy these demands for financial transfers being made by the developing countries. However, governments can — through the right domestic and international policy arrangements — provide key incentives for the private sector to provide the needed finance through foreign direct investments.

For example, if the cap-and-trade systems which are emerging throughout the industrialized world as the favored domestic approach to reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are linked together through the existing, common emission-reduction-credit system, namely the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), then powerful incentives can be created for carbon-friendly private investment in the developing world. That would not add to U.S. debt; indeed, it would be good for U.S. private industry.

Clearly the CDM, as it currently stands, cannot live up to this promise, but with appropriate reforms there is significant potential. Of course, problems of limited additionality will inevitably remain. Therefore, what is needed is for the key emerging economies — China, India, Brazil, Korea, South Korea, South Africa, and Mexico — to take on meaningful emission targets themselves (even if equivalent to business as usual in the short term), and then participate directly in international cap-and-trade, not government-government trading as envisioned in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol (which won’t work), but firm-firm trading through linked national and multi-national cap-and-trade systems.

In addition, such private finance stands a much greater chance than government aid of being efficiently employed, that is, targeted to reducing emissions, rather than spent by poor nations on other (possibly meritorious) purposes. So, the job can be done, and governments have an important role, but as facilitators, not providers, of finance. If it’s done the right way, Congressman Sensenbrenner’s concerns should be alleviated.

Most economists agree that the stimulus package, while not perfect, has helped pull the economy back from the economic brink. At the same time, most expert economists agree that climate change poses real economic risks to the American and global economy. Just as it would have been disastrous for Congress to bury its head in the sand as the economy fell down the sinkhole in the waning months of the Bush presidency, ignoring the damage climate change would do is a blatant disregard for science and the interests of future generations for the sake of political expediency.

It is perhaps worth noting that country that is busiest touting the so called “climategate” emails in Copenhagen is Saudi Arabia. Because of its vast oil resources, and its decision to protect the status quo rather that promote a saner and safer energy future, Saudi Arabia’s interests are well aligned with the climate change “skeptics” who have attempted for decades to obscure the reality that greenhouse gases impose huge environmental risks. Is the science 100% absolutely certain? Never; that’s how science works. But is there more than enough information to act? Absolutely. As Senator Kerry pointed out yesterday in his remarks here, if the U.S. followed former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s 1% preemptive war doctrine to the climate change questions, there is no doubt that we would be far down the road of reducing carbon pollution, rather than just taking our first tentative steps.

The question is whether the U.S. can afford to help poor countries along the way to cleaner energy. Many developing countries here argue that wealthy nations followed a carbon intensive path to growth, and if they want others to follow a different (and more expensive) route, they should help pay. They also note that rich countries have vastly more discretionary resources, with per capita GDPs orders of magnitude higher. Huge numbers of the world’s poor live on less than a dollar a day, subjected to poverty that is unimaginable in the developed world.

Do these conditions create a moral duty for the United States? These are questions we all have to answer according to our values and principles. But, if one thinks that we should make amends for harms that we do others and that the well-off cannot simply cast aside the needy, some obligation to help poor countries deal with climate change seems pretty clear. This is a decision that we as a people have to decide, but in the past, those that have asked America to step up to a vision of generosity and sacrifice have met with success, while the counselors of stinginess and insularity have justifiably been ignored.

Just as important, if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the cheapest way to do so is by helping developing countries. Because we are so far down the development path, the opportunities for reduction are much more expensive in the United States than in India, China, and elsewhere. Every dollar spent reducing emissions domestically can reduce twice as much or more if spend on cheap opportunities across the globe. The basic economic rationality of leveraging cheap opportunities abroad is undeniable.

The costs of domestic climate change legislation have been widely overestimated and any job impact analysis should be taken with a grain of salt – no one knows how legislation will effect net employment, especially as far out as 2030. But if people are worried about the costs, working with developing countries is one of the main ways to achieve greenhouse gas reductions while keeping the costs as low as possible.

Obfuscation and denial is always an option. They may even have short-term political benefits. As President Obama makes his final decisions on commitments in Copenhagen, we can only hope that he is listening more to the responsible voices that ask him to heed scientific and economic realities and retake America’s status as a global moral leader.

At this stage, one of the best possibilities to reach an agreement in Copenhagen is to engage the private sector in the equation. This is possible due to the carbon market that I designed and drafted into the Kyoto Protocol, which creates private business incentives and profitable opportunities for clean energy projects that were not possible before.

I refer to my recent proposal for a $200 bn/year private/public fund to build green power plants in developing nations - in particular in low emitting nations in Africa, Latin America and the Small Island States. This proposal is gathering support from a number of nations, and from conversations with the US delegation here in Copenhagen, it agrees with the US policy of involving the private sector and following market based solutions.
In practice, the proposal is as follows.

Energy demand is rapidly increasing in the world economy. But most of the increase comes now from developing nations. The energy industry is aware of the strategic opportunity this creates for expanding their profitable activities into new developing regions where the demand is strongest. Yet lack of funding in developing nations can be a problem. This problem can now be resolved by building “green” power plants with funding provided by the carbon market and its Clean Development Mechanism.

The technology was recently advocated by Dr. Pachauri, Chief of the IPCC, who said that “sucking carbon from air” is now necessary for averting catastrophic climate change risks. With this approach one could make green power available for economic development, and for adaptation and mitigation against climate change in developing nations -- while averting climate change risks. Because air is available uniformly around the world, the raw material for sucking carbon is readily available to all nations. These power plants can enable countries to suck more carbon than they emit, and therefore the solution can bring funding to low emitter nations in Africa, Latin America and the Small Island States that until now got relatively little resources from the CDM.

I have recently proposed an innovative financial mechanism that can provide private/public funding for the purpose of building green power plants in developing nations, focused on low emitting nations in Africa, Latin America and the Small Island States. The financial mechanism consists of $200 bn/year fund for the purpose of building green power plants in developing nations. The fund relies on the carbon market that I designed and drafted into the Kyoto Protocol, and its Clean Development Mechanism, and is therefore based on legally binding emission limits on industrialized nations, satisfying the aims of most of the Parties of the climate negotiations including the G77. At the same time the solution will raise funding from the private sector to greatly amplify Annex 1 pledged resources, and this will satisfy the fiscal constraints faced currently in Annex 1 nations. As the technology is particularly favorable to low emitters, the plan would also meet the aims of, and bring substantive CDM funding to the Small Island States, Africa and Latin America – regions that until now got little support from the CDM.

The financial mechanism will work as follows. Annex 1 nations will underwrite and guarantee a $200 bn/year fund contributing for this purpose their pledged funds (approximately $10 – 25 bn) that will be used to cover the lowest ‘riskiest slice’ of the fund. The second riskiest slice will be covered from pension funds within the Annex 1 nations, who are required to green their portfolios. The rest of the funding will come from global capital markets, thus greatly amplifying the public funds. The energy industry in OECD will contribute technology, know-how and training for developing nations to running and future development of their own plants, and is also expected to support the effort in legislative circles. The main beneficiaries will be the lowest emitting nations of Africa, Latin America and the Small Island States where most of the plants will be built. For this purpose recent wording was introduced in the CDM WG last week that, if adopted, will allow the CDM to accredit ‘carbon negative’ projects, which reduce more carbon in the atmosphere than what they emit.

Investment bankers in the US and the UK have already expressed great interest in raising the private funding that the fund will require that they considered quite realistic, all within the restrictions that the UNFCCC and its carbon market and CDM will impose as the administrators of the fund.