Climategate: How To Follow the Money
It appears that most of the Copenhagen participants saw the money they spent as an investment. Here's how they get paid.
by Charlie Martin
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/There’s big money in climate.
That became strikingly obvious in Copenhagen. The conference itself cost in the neighborhood of $30 million, but that was only the visible tip of the melting iceberg. Add to that the celebrities, the demonstrators, the congressional delegations, and the corporate displays, and you can bet something closer to $60 million was really spent on the conference — along with, of course, a carbon footprint the size of Morocco’s. The one significant outcome of the Copenhagen conference was an agreement to continue the international market in carbon offset trading that would otherwise have expired in 2012, and a crash in the carbon credits market.
It appears that most of the participants saw the money spent as an investment.
To see why, we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the biggest names in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how the whole carbon trading scheme works.
Simple Carbon Trading
Start with the simple proposition that you want, for whatever reason, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) being emitted by human activities worldwide. The reasons, of course, are all based on the idea that humans emitting GHGs are causing unexpected and unacceptable changes in the climate. Whether that’s true or not is a topic for other articles; for now, just take it as given.
There are actually a number of GHGs that could be an issue, but the largest share of human-produced GHGs is in carbon dioxide (CO2). So for simplicity, the Kyoto Protocol normalizes everything in terms of CO2 alone, using a number called the global warming potential. By definition, the global warming potential of CO2 is 1; the highest GWP is for sulfur hexaflouride, a gas used mainly in electrical equipment. Sulfur hexaflouride has a GWP of 23,900, so for Kyoto Protocol purposes, releasing 1 ton of sulfur hexaflouride is considered to be 23,900 tons of CO2.
Now, if there were a king of the world, that dread sovereign might just say: “Hey! Stop emitting GHGs!” And that would be that. In the real world, if you want to reduce GHGs, you have to come up with some kind of scheme to get people to do it (more or less) voluntarily. Governments do this, normally, with taxes. The simplest scheme is just to tax anyone who emits GHGs, charging them enough to pay for the bad effects. Reduce the amount you emit and your taxes go down.
Of course with a government program, and particularly with the UN, nothing is that simple.
Developing countries, particularly India and China, have rapidly growing economies and populations that really enjoy that their standards of living are rising toward first-world levels. These countries, as they improve their standards of living, are necessarily going to release more CO2. In the simple model, they would be expected to pay for those emissions.
Carbon Trading after Kyoto
India and China, with rapidly growing economies and populations that are really enjoying progress towards a first-world standard of living, didn’t like this scheme at all. To them, the simple carbon tax is just a massive tax, reducing their GDP and impeding their progress. Add to this the historical resentment of colonialism, and the simple carbon tax was a non-starter.
The Kyoto plan was intended to solve this — at the cost of more complexity — by using a carbon trading scheme. For example, imagine China is going to build a new power plant that would have emitted 1,000 tons of CO2 a year. If China instead builds that plant with new technology that reduces the emissions to 500 tons a year, they get 500 tons of carbon credits in the form of a certificate of emission reduction (CER). The theory is that they can then sell those CERs to other places as “credit” in place of CO2 emission reductions, something we’ll discuss below.
The devil is in the details, of course. If you can get a 500 ton CER for building the power plant better, shouldn’t you get 1,000 tons of credit for not building the power plant at all?
That could be a pretty sweet deal — you can not-build a lot of power plants in a year. If there’s a market for these CERs, that’s a license to print money. So there’s immediately a problem — you must somehow establish that you only provide CERs for projects that would otherwise have been built anyway.
The Kyoto Protocol establishes a mechanism to certify these emission reductions called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which establishes a bureaucratic process under the supervision of the UN to do this certification. The purpose of the CDM is to keep the process honest. Only certify emission reductions for projects that would have been built anyway and that would have had a greater carbon footprint if they had been built the way they would have been built.
Got that? You have a CER, with real cash value, as long as a UN organization will certify what you might have done, and the way you might have done it, if you had done it, and done it that way.
Now, let’s leave the third world and go to the developed world, the first world, or what the Kyoto Protocol calls the Annex I countries. In fact, let’s go to the the U.S., where there is a power plant that already emits 1,000 tons of CO2 a year. They can offset that emission by buying the CER from China — but why would they bother?
Of course, some people would buy CERs out of commitment or guilt — say Hollywood folks who want to continue to use their private jets — but the market in guilt is actually pretty limited.
For this scheme to work, there has to be some reason why the power plant would be forced to reduce their carbon emissions. That’s where the Kyoto Protocols come in. Part of the protocol is an agreement by each of the Annex I countries that they will reduce their carbon emissions by some amount, but that reduction can either be in actual reductions or by buying CERs.
Put together, these two parts — an enforced reduction or “cap” on carbon emission and a way to trade CERs — are the key components of a “cap and trade” scheme, which is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol.
Carbon Markets
There’s one more missing component here. There has to be a way for people with CERs to find people who want to buy CERs — in other words, there has to be a market. This market operates, just like the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, or the rug merchant in a bazaar in Istanbul, as a profit-making entity. Every time Wayne in Chicago buys a CER from Wang in Shanghai, the guy facilitating the market — call him “Al” — takes a little off the top in the transaction.
Now we’ve got a picture of the whole transaction:
1. Wayne in Chicago needs to reduce his CO2 emissions by 500 tons, so he contacts Al.
2. Wang in Shanghai has a 500 ton CER.
3. Wayne and Wang agree, through Al, that the 500 ton CER is worth $1000.
4. So Al takes the CER from Wang, paying him $980 (subtracting a $20 commission from the $1,000 trade price) and gives it to Wayne in exchange for $1,020 (because Al is charging Wayne a commission too.)
Now, on paper at least, Wayne is only producing (net) 500 tons of carbon emissions.
Perverse Incentives
“On paper” is the key here. In reality, Wayne alone used to be emitting 1,000 tons of carbon. Now, Wayne and Wang together are emitting 1,500 tons in total. Wayne is out $1,020 for the CER, Wang is $980 richer, and Al has made $40.
On paper, it’s a reduction of 500 tons of CO2 emissions, but it’s only a real reduction if Wang really would otherwise have built a power plant to emit 1,000 tons. But because Wang knows he can make money on the CERs, that is going to factor into his decision to build a power plant at all — all the incentives in Wang’s case are to build more power plants and emit more CO2, as long as he can convince someone (in this case a UN organization) that he “really would have built the power plants anyway.”
Of course, Wayne could have kept his $1,020 if it weren’t for the government forcing him to reduce his “carbon footprint.” So this is effectively a tax. The effect is that Wayne is paying $1020 in taxes, of which $40 goes to Al and $980 goes to Wang in China, and there is a net reduction in carbon output only if the CERs really represent carbon that “would have been emitted anyway.”
And this all managed by the paragon of incorruptible altruism, the United Nations.
Follow the Money
The frightening thing, at least for Al and Wang, is that this was all set to go away. The Kyoto Protocols expire in 2012, and without an agreement to extend them, new Chinese power plants would have to be built without cash coming from the developed world and carbon trading markets would have nothing to trade.
The amount of money involved isn’t trivial. According to Richard North at the Daily Mail, the carbon trading market last year was worth about £129 million (or about $205 million U.S.) and was heading toward trillions of dollars by 2020. So it’s probably not a coincidence that, for all the discord in Copenhagen, the one thing to which all the parties did agree was to extend the Kyoto cap and trade system. The market in carbon offsets or CER would continue.
Who benefits from this?
An interesting question. Of course, it’s well known that Al Gore is heavily involved in the carbon offset market and in other environmental ventures. There is speculation that Gore could be the world’s first green billionaire.
Another beneficiary is the UN itself. All of these international processes happen under the supervision and control of the UN and UN-chartered nongovernmental organizations.
The most interesting connection that’s come out in recent days is Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri — the chairman of the IPCC. Pachauri, an engineer and economist by training, joined the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) in April of 1981 as managing director and continues to be employed there to this day. TERI was renamed the Energy and Resources Institute in 2003. According to the Science and Public Policy Institute, at the time of the name change, TERI communications director Annapurna Vancheswaran said:
"We have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas. It [the name-change from Tata Energy Research Institute to The Energy Research Institute] is only for convenience."
Pachauri, and TERI, maintains close ties with the Tata Group.
Pachauri, it turns out, has a number of interesting connections. Beside the connection to Tata — TERI insists it has terminated the official connection — Dr. Pachauri is a director or advisor to many other organizations involved in the “climate industry.” The Telegraph puts it like this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html"What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr. Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organizations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations."
"These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies, and investment funds heavily involved in “carbon trading” and “sustainable technologies,” which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year."
"Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international 'climate industry.'"
Roger Pielke Jr. looked at the conflict of interest policies at the UN and concluded that Dr. Pachauri’s business connections appear to conflict with the normal UN policies, but that it’s not clear that IPCC is covered.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/does-ipcc-chairman-have-conflicts-of.htmlBased on the WMO and UN discussions of conflicts of interest, it seems clear that Dr. Pachauri has, at the very least, several associations that raise the appearance of a conflict of interest in such a way that does not preserve and enhance “public confidence in their own integrity and that of their organization.” Since we do not have details on Dr. Pachauri’s activities or compensation from these various organizations and businesses, it is impossible to tell what, if any, conflicts actually may exist.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect high-ranking IPCC officials to follow the WMO and UN guidelines for conflict of interest and disclosure. Apparently, they presently do not follow these or any other such practices. If the IPCC does not have any policies governing these issues, it certainly needs to develop them, lest they give the impression that climate scientists play by different rules than everyone else.
Lord Monckton, in an open letter to Dr. Pachauri and the IPCC, made another point. In one specific instance, Tata industries owns Corvus Steel, which owns a steel mill in the UK. Monckton wrote:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf"The Tata group is now owner of Corus Steel, which, not long ago, closed down the steelworks in Redcar, UK, putting 1,700 workers out of their jobs. Corus stands to make billions by cashing in on now-surplus EU “carbon credits” given to the steelworks. It stands to make a great deal more, via the Clean Development Mechanism that is one spin-off from the IPCC process, by transferring steel production from the Redcar works to India."
"Tata stands to gain from the Clean Development Mechanism by receiving credits for notional carbon “savings” obtained by investing in a new steel plant in the Indian province of Orissa, which will initially produce 3 million tons of hot rolled steel — exactly the capacity of the now-closed Redcar plant."
From the discussion above, it’s clear what happens here. When they close the still mill in Redcar, that is a lot of carbon emissions they no longer make; that’s a large CER. At the same time, they open a new steel mill in Orissa that produces exactly as much steel. If they can convince some UN functionary that this new mill “would have” been built anyway, and “would have” produced much more carbon emissions had they hypothetically built it in that alternate world, they can realize more CERs that can be exchanged for real cash in the carbon markets. At least, they can if they can convince the UN. Remember that you need a UN certification of what you might have otherwise done, and how you would have done it, if you had done it and done it that way.
And Dr. Pachauri, with his extensive ties to Tata and his leadership position in the IPCC, seems likely to have substantial influence in the UN.
Who Benefits?
At the conclusion of the Copenhagen talks, what was the actual result? The Obama administration hoped for an agreement with developing countries, particularly India and China, that would include binding targets for GHG reductions and verification procedures to ensure that carbon credits represented “real” reductions.
What they got was a non-binding agreement that basically has no effect except that the existing Kyoto agreement for cap and trade continues. This seems unlikely to limit carbon emissions much — after all, the theoretically binding agreements of Kyoto weren’t particularly successful. (In fact, the U.S. has been closer to meeting its announced goals than the EU, even though the U.S. didn’t ratify the treaty.)
What’s interesting is that carbon offset prices collapsed along with the collapse of the Copenhagen talks. It’s pretty straightforward to understand what this market is saying: Up to the last gasp in Copenhagen, the betting had been that there would be even more restrictive limits on carbon in the developed countries, and so greater demand for offsets. The markets didn’t get those, and so “decided” offsets were worth less. On the other hand, with no agreement at all, the value of a carbon offset would be near zero, and China, India, and people who invested in the carbon markets would be seriously hurt.
This eleventh-hour “non-bonding” agreement, made by just a few participants, seems to have primarily had the effect of preserving the carbon market’s existence.
Which means that the existing carbon trading scheme continues. China, India, Tata Group, Rajendra Pachauri, and “Al” are still in business.
[Salamantis] Also see The Belmont Club:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/12/21/the-copencabana/Climategate: The Perils of Global Warming Models
If a model has not been proven to fully reflect reality, then it has very limited use and should be treated like a horoscope.
by John Droz, Jr.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-perils-of-global-warming-models/Everyone readily admits that things aren’t always what they seem. But are we really applying this knowledge in our daily dealings? Are we consciously ferreting out the illusory from the reality? I think not.
For instance, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we aren’t really being run by pandering politicians, self-serving lobbyists, fanatical environmentalists, and greedy Wall Street manipulators. They are the illusion.
There is another even more powerful (but much less visible) agent behind all of these puppets.
The person behind the screen is the computer programmer. And, just like in the Wizard of OZ, they do not want you to look at this real controller.
I’ll probably have to turn in my membership card, but as a computer programmer (and physicist and environmental activist) I’m here to spill the beans about the Wiz.
The first hint of trouble is spelled out in Wikipedia’s explanation about computer programmers:
"The discipline differs from many other technical professions in that programmers generally do not need to be licensed or pass any standardized (or governmentally regulated) certification tests in order to call themselves 'programmers' or even 'software engineers.'”
Hmmm.
My layperson explanation is that computer programming is all about making assumptions, and then converting these into mathematical equations.
The big picture question is this: Is it really possible to accurately convert complex real-world situations into ones and zeros? Hal may think so, but higher processing brains say no. Yet this is continuously attempted, with very limited success. Let’s pull the screen back a bit more.
We’ll start with an example about how such a model makes assumptions.
One of the computer programs I wrote was for debt collectors. A typical scenario was that a debtor was given a date to make a payment and the collection company didn’t receive it on time. What response is then appropriate?
In such a circumstance the computer program typically makes an automatic contact with the debtor. (Remember there are thousands of these debtors, and it would be prohibitively time consuming for an agency person to manually check into and follow up each case.)
So what to say in this correspondence to the debtor? Well, it comes down to the assumptions made by the computer programmer.
The programmer tries to simplify such situations into mathematical options. In this case they may decide that the question is: “Does the debtor have the money to make this payment: yes or no?” This relatively basic choice then leads to a Boolean progression within the program.
How does the programmer (model) decide on yes or no? Well, other indicators would be used (e.g., were prior payments made on time) to come up with a statistical probability.
Of course, any computer model is not one set of choices, but rather a whole series of yes/no (if/or) calculations that lead to a conclusion. In a complex situation (e.g., debt collection, climate change, or financial derivatives) there could easily be a hundred such choices to deal with.
To understand the implications of that, let’s just consider the case where there are ten such decision points — each with a “yes” or “no” answer. At the end of such a pipeline, that means that there are 210 (i.e., 1024) possible results. That’s a lot of different potential conclusions.
Unfortunately, there are actually many more possibilities! The assumption that this debtor situation could be condensed down to a “yes” or “no” answer is not accurate. There are several other real situations that fall outside of “yes” or “no.”
For instance, what if the debtor never got a notice in the first place that the amount was due by the date the agency is monitoring? Or what if the debtor sent the money and it got lost in transition? Or what if the debtor made the payment to the original person they owed, rather than the collection agency? Or what if the debtor sent in the money on time, and the collection agency incorrectly didn’t credit the debtor for the payment? Etc., etc.
For the computer program (model) to be accurate, all of these scenarios need to be able to be handled properly (legally, timely, etc.). Can you begin to see the complexity here, just with this very simple example of a payment not being received on time?
There is still another significant factor (we’re up to #4 now) not mentioned yet. What about the situation where the debtor hasn’t paid, but it’s because his child has MS, and he has no insurance? How does a computer programmer write code for more abstract concepts, like “fairness”? In other words, can ones and zeros be arranged in such a way to represent intangibles? I think not.
So the bottom line question is this: Is there any way that a computer program can correctly handle all of these real-world possibilities — even in this simple debt collection case? The answer is no.
We have considerable difficulties just translating the relatively simple thing we call language — e.g., Greek biblical texts into English. How many versions of the Bible are there? Why isn’t there just one?
Can we possibly hope to translate a process much more complicated than just words? We can certainly try, but clearly the answer is that there is a lot lost in the translation of any complex scenario (debtors, energy performance, etc.) into mathematical equations and computer code.
Some uninformed parties believe that the user has control of all the variables, and can manually (and accurately) change scenarios. That is incorrect, as the user-controlled elements only represent a small fraction of the actual number of factors that are built into the computer model.
A similar fallacy is to think something like “we know the assumptions that the programmers made, and are adjusting accordingly.” This is wrong.
In writing a computer program of any complexity, there are literally hundreds of assumptions made. The computer programmer does not reveal all these to his customer, for much the same reasons that an accountant does not tell his client all of the assumptions made in preparing a tax return. He goes over a few of the more basic items, and then says “sign here.”
Oh, yes, this example brings up still another major variable (#7): the data the programmer uses as the basis for his creation.
Just like preparing a tax return depends on two parties working together, writing a computer model is a collaboration between scientist and programmer. If the taxpayer gives incomplete or inaccurate data to the accountant, the result will be wrong. What’s disconcerting is that in many cases, neither party will know that the results are in error.
Similarly if the scientist (inadvertently) gives incomplete or inaccurate data to the programmer to use in his creation, the result will likewise be wrong. And neither party will know it.
There is still one more significant variable (#
that we have to take into account. After a computer model is generated, there is an interpreter (e.g., IPCC) that translates the “results” for politicians and the public (i.e., the media).
Here’s a surprise: These public interpretations are influenced by such factors as political, religious, environmental, financial, and scientific opinions. In their public revelations, do the interpreters explain all of their underlying biases? By now you know the answer: absolutely not.
When these are introduced into the equation we obviously have strayed so far from scientific fact that it is not even in sight anymore.
So we need to think very carefully before we take major actions (e.g., spend a few trillion dollars based on climate predictions, wind energy projected performance, etc.) that are almost entirely based on computer models.
What to do? Should we just scrap all computer models?
No, that’s the other extreme. Computer models have merit — but shouldn’t be the tail wagging the dog.
We should realistically see computer models for what they are — tools to assist us in organizing our thoughts, and producers of highly subjective results that are simply starting points for real scientific analysis.
Because of their inherent limitations (which I’ve just touched on here) all computer models should be treated with a very healthy degree of skepticism.
To insure appropriate integrity, all computer models regarding matters of importance should be subjected to the rigors of scientific methodology.
If they can’t accurately and continuously replicate the results of real-world data, then they should be discarded.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.
We have gotten so addicted to the illusion that these programs are accurate — and some have become so agenda driven — that we are now adjusting or discarding real-world data that doesn’t agree with the model. This is insane.
If a model has not been proven to fully reflect reality, then it has very limited use and should be treated with the same degree of consideration that one might give a horoscope.
Study Shows CFCs, Cosmic Rays Major Culprits for Global Warming
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.
In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."
New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.
The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002
On Iran, a Bipartisan Message to Obama: Act Now
By Byron York
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/On-Iran_-a-bipartisan-message-to-Obama_-Act-now-8671679-79871667.htmlIs there anything that could bring our deeply divided Congress together in an act of overwhelming bipartisanship? Is there any issue that could unite more than 400 members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, in common cause? Is it even possible to have broad bipartisan agreement on a major problem facing the country today?
The answer is yes. You might not have noticed -- it didn't get much coverage -- but on Dec. 15 the House voted, by the unheard-of margin of 412 to 12, to pass a bill called the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. With one loud, united voice, lawmakers told President Obama to stop messing around and impose real sanctions in response to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The bill targets a major Iranian vulnerability. Even though it has vast stores of oil -- it's the world's fourth-largest producer -- Iran has little capacity to refine that oil into gasoline, diesel fuel and other usable products. So an oil-rich nation has to import gas. If it can't get the gas, it can't keep its economy going. The legislation would crack down on the companies that provide the fuel that keeps the Iranian theocracy in business.
The act's prologue is an extended rebuke of the Obama administration's Iran policy. Iran's nuclear program is "a serious threat to the security of the United States," the prologue says, and many U.S. allies, including Britain, France and Germany, have already advocated tougher sanctions against Iran.
In October 2008, the prologue continues, then-senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama said petroleum sanctions might force Iran to change its ways. "If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis," Obama said. "That starts putting the squeeze on them."
The prologue goes on to cite the "serious and urgent nature" of the Iranian threat, as well as the "brutal repression and murder, arbitrary arrests, and show trials of peaceful dissidents" in Iran. It declares that Iran has not only ignored but has been "contemptuous of" Obama's efforts to reach out to Tehran.Iran "is not interested in a diplomatic resolution," the act concludes. Therefore, it is time for action.
The legislation would require Obama to impose sanctions on companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran or help Iran acquire refined petroleum, either by shipping it in or by increasing Iran's capacity to refine oil. The proposed sanctions extend to companies that provide ships for getting the refined products to Iran and even companies that insure those ships.
The sanctions include basically barring those firms from doing business in the United States -- prohibiting them from taking part in any financial transactions in the United States, freezing their U.S. assets and forbidding them from dealing in U.S. dollars. Those are real and serious penalties, and they would be felt if actually imposed on the companies that keep the Iranian machine running.
After decisive passage in the House, the act is now in the Senate, where it also has far-reaching bipartisan support. The problem is, the Democratic leadership has been more interested in passing a national health care bill by Christmas Eve than in dealing firmly with the Iranian nuclear threat.
But it will ultimately pass the Senate and then head to Obama's desk. Will the president who has invested so much of his personal prestige in the idea of engagement -- the man who, as a candidate, pledged to meet Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions -- actually take action?
"This is a test for the Obama administration," says an advocate of sanctions. "It's clear Iran is not cooperating. Will the administration lead on this and move forward to the United Nations, with the Europeans and then with the coalition of the like-minded? It will be a moment of truth, the time by which his foreign policy will be defined."
Support for action is as bipartisan as bipartisan can be. In the House, the act was passed with the votes of 241 Democrats and 171 Republicans. Republicans Mike Pence and Eric Cantor support it, and Democrats Henry Waxman and Barney Frank support it. The 12 lawmakers who voted against it were mostly fringe figures, including Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
The mainstream message is as clear as Congress can make it: It's time for Obama to do something.
Author
Logged
