August 2008

Most every politician and pundit says "energy independence" is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I've reported repeatedly how the Center for Climate Strategies, which has been hired in many states to manage greenhouse gas reduction commissions created by governors, claims they are objective consultants and have no environmental advocacy interests. However, the Form 990 tax returns for their parent organization (Enterprising Environmental Solutions, Inc.) tell a different story, as I've also reported.

Well, it's one thing to tell an audience something is so; it's even better when you can show them. This is long overdue, but at Climate Strategies Watch we've begun to post some of these documents (most obtained from public records requests) that prove in black-and-white some of what I've reported. Today I'll highlight from the Climate Strategies Watch Web site the clear statements from those tax returns that illustrate CCS's advocacy origins.

CCS was created by an explicit advocacy group, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. As PEC's Web site explains (read under "Advocacy"), "PEC is a catalyst for legislative, regulatory and policy change by public and private decision-makers to advance solutions that are in the best environmental and economic interests of the Commonwealth (of Pennsylvania)."

PEC/EESI/CCS Relationship

According to both the fiscal year 2006 (see Statement 4)(PDF) and 2007 (see Statement 5)(PDF) IRS Form 990s for EESI/CCS, PEC "formed EESI to carry out their non-regulatory agenda. EESI has their own board of directors and is controlled by PEC, since PEC is the only member of EESI." Scrolling down in the same documents, Statement 5 for FY2006 and Statement 6 for FY2007 state, "Fees…paid to EESI to perform environmental projects/studies which correspond with EESI's mission to advance, support and promote the purposes of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council by seeking to implement innovative solutions to long-standing environmental problems." No advocacy? No agenda?

PEC/EESI/CCS Shared Board Membership

EESI Board Members for FY2006 (PDF); EESI Board Members for FY2007 (PDF) — and note the overlap with members of PEC's board of directors. Paul King (chairman for both organizations), Brian Hill (until recently, as of early 2008, president of PEC and Secretary/Treasurer for EESI), and Tom Rodriguez (director for both) and John Rogers (director for both in FY2006). In FY2006 PEC board members or officers consisted of 2/3 (4 of 6) of EESI/CCS's board. In FY2007 PEC board members or officers consisted of 3/5 (3 of 5) of EESI/CCS's board.

PEC/EESI/CCS Shared Employees

Note from the "Contact" page for EESI/CCS that, besides the Brian Hill relationship, the manager is identified as Scott Van De Mark, a PEC employee. The same page also states that EESI/CCS "is a supporting organization to the Pennsylvania Environmental Council."

Apparently EESI/CCS needs to find someone to do the work, since the employee salary/compensation lines on their last two tax returns (FY2006 and FY2007, PDFs) show they have no employees of their own.

More to come later this week, including the backgrounds and employment origins of many of CCS's consultants.

A California court rejected a proposal to build a controversial luxury resort and golf course in Desert Hot Springs because the project's environmental study failed to analyze the project's greenhouse gas emissions. The lawsuit, which was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, challenged the development based on AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 did not address emissions analysis as part of the California Environmental Quality Act, but the California Legislature passed SB 97 last year, requiring the Office of Planning and Research to develop regulations on how emissions should be addressed in CEQ documents no later than July 1, 2009. The court’s decision is the first legal interpretation of how to incorporate emissions analysis into CEQ documents until the OPR releases its regulations.

One major problem with politics — as we've all probably figured out by now — is that politicians view every human challenge as political in nature, meaning, particularly these last few years. Objective No. 1 in the political trade is sticking to it The Other Party.

As the tide of public opinion seems to shift in favor of House Republicans' demand for a vote on domestic energy exploration, one supporting argument has yet to be discussed: drilling as a way to lower your taxes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposal Saturday to make expanded offshore drilling part of a new Democratic energy bill got a skeptical reaction from Republicans, who said they suspect it will contain other provisions unacceptable to the minority. The result may be that Congress remains deadlocked on the potent election issue.

Russia's invasion of Georgian territory last week, in addition to reasserting Moscow's military strength, has complicated Europe's effort to diversify its oil and gas supplies away from the growing dominance of Kremlin-controlled energy giant Gazprom.

According to Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., living within two miles of a wind turbine causes serious health problems, including headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems. Dr. Pierpont has coined the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" to describe these effects, which are caused by the low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines.