June 2009

Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a public web page dedicated exclusively to the Waxman-Markey bill.  The page is accessible here.

The purpose of this very basic page is to give visitors the 10 or 15 most relevant documents to Waxman-Markey, so as not to overwhelm them. It’s a great place to learn more about an energy-rationing bill that threatens to torpedo economic growth in America.

The annual meeting of the Western Governors Association closed yesterday, and the Deseret News stuck with the global warming theme of departing (once he’s confirmed ambassador to China) Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (an alarmist) being replaced by Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert (a skeptic). The newspaper put Herbert in the spotlight once again about his intentions on the issue when he takes the top office:

Herbert, who will have to run in 2010 for the remainder of Huntsman’s term, told the Deseret News he had no political agenda. “I’m certainly not going to be the same as Gov. Huntsman,” Herbert said, but was not “calculating to set myself apart.”

He said other governors attending the meeting told him privately they agreed with him (about climate change) but the [WGA] had already decided its position. A resolution urging regional and national policies on global climate change was approved at the meeting.

Herbert said he hopes to organize his own conference in Utah so scientists on both sides of the issue can make their arguments.

“When it gets right down to it, I’m not too radical. I’m just a simple guy,” he said. “If I don’t understand it, there are probably a lot of other people who don’t, either.”

Meanwhile Democratic Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (a somewhat reformed alarmist) reiterated his views that the debate about global warming is not settled:

[Schweitzer] said, “while I believe and I think many people agree with me that human activity has contributed to greenhouse gases and those greenhouse gases are changing our climate and it is something we need to address, others don’t believe it.”

Schweitzer said most people fall between the extremes of dismissing climate change altogether and believing that “unless we move immediately into a cave and live around a campfire that the world is going to be destroyed.”

It’d be nice if President Obama paid attention to that message.

Hat tip to Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero.

Cheney Coal Plan Gets $1 Billion Boost…From Obama
Tim Carney, Washington Examiner, 17 June 2009

Leading coal and electricity companies on Friday won a billion-dollar chunk of stimulus money from the Obama administration, highlighting once again how President Barack Obama’s anti-lobbyist and anti-big business rhetoric is divorced from his actions.

Farmer Brown Fights Back
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott, American Spectator, 17 June 2009

To all appearances, green special interests are on a roll.

Global Cooling
Colorado Gazette Editorial, 16 June 2009

More and more, progressives who want American citizens to fork over their money in an effort to control the climate are trying to market the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming,” in an urgent about face they hope nobody will notice. That’s because they’re faced with an inconvenient truth: all the hystrionics about icebergs melting and drowning coastal cities in coming years may not be true. To continue the fear, and therefore generate support for spending billions to solve the crisis, fear-mongers need terminology that will work no matter what the climate does.

Newsbusters noticed that INN (the Immelt News Network, more commonly known as NBC) — corporate child of General Electric, the big maker of and subsidy sucker for its wind turbines — downplayed the recent cool weather. NB’s Jeff Poor reports:

According to NBC chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson, the phenomena are caused by the a jet stream dropping deeper into the United States than is usual for this time of year.

“Though summer doesn’t officially start for another week, the run up has been most unseasonable,” Thompson said.

But Anne assured viewers, and anchor Brian Williams, that those wind turbines are still needed! More from Poor:

“This less-than-beach-like weather may have you wondering about global warming,” Thompson said. “This cold spell is a snapshot, just a couple of weeks. Global warming is something that happens over decades and centuries. So hang in there, summer and its warmth is on the horizon.”

That news of warm weather and theory of global warming was reassuring for Williams. “Glad to hear that. I was beginning to worry,” he said.

Lest Immelt put heat on the news department like a solar panel on a desert turtle!

North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, is disputing a National Academy of Sciences study of claims that health problems were caused by water contamination at Camp Lejeune between the 1950s and 1985. The News & Observer of Raleigh reports:

In a statement today, the Democrat said the study, released over the weekend, neglects key historical document and “severely downplays the established links between adverse health effects and exposure to [volatile organic compounds] that were present in the water at Camp Lejeune.”

Hagan called for a hearing to explore the topic. “Former personnel and residents of Camp Lejeune need closure on this issue and one way to help facilitate that is through a hearing in the Armed Services Committee,” her statement said.

She continued, “The time has come for Congress, the Department of the Navy, and the Marine Corps to work together to develop a plan to resolve the longstanding issue of water contamination at Camp Lejeune.”

More from Hagan’s press release:

“The NAS study released Saturday is simply a review of previous scientific literature on hydrocarbon solvents, reports on Camp Lejeune water contamination, and published epidemiologic and toxicological studies,” said Hagan. “However, it failed to take into account the conclusions of previous epidemiological studies that found an association between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exposures and childhood leukemia, and presents some direct contradictions to the EPA’s maximum containment levels of VOCs in drinking water. Moreover, the NAS study barely mentioned benzene and vinyl chloride…. For these reasons, I cannot stand behind the validity of the NAS study.”

Are you saying, Senator, that the NAS is capable of…bad science?! That perhaps the most “prestigious” association of scientists is capable of ignoring vital research and facts?

In that case, Senator Hagen, can we revisit some of the other crapola science that NAS has produced recently, like with global warming (“is happening even faster than previously estimated”)? That statement, issued Thursday, is a proven lie.

The Heartland Institute has created some terrific print ads countering the prevailing political and media wisdom in Washington on the issue of global warming. The three ads will run in the Washington Post today, tomorrow and Thursday, and will “call for an open debate over the science of global warming.”

One, two, three…they’re all good but the second, illustrating the alarmists’ “unscientific method,” I think is best.

The global warming issue finally came up yesterday at the annual Western Governors Association meeting in Park City, Utah, where the news is that alarmist sympathizer Jon Huntsman Jr. — the (Republican) host governor, outgoing WGA chairman, and next ambassador to China — will be replaced in Utah by more skeptical (Republican) Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. While President Obama had high-level officials (Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley) there to push the “debate is over” lie, Herbert demanded more conclusive proof.

But perhaps most surprising were comments by Democrat Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the incoming WGA chairman, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, former Democrat Governor of Iowa. Both said the debate — at least from the public’s perspective — is far from over. The Salt Lake Tribune reported:

Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who replaced Republican Huntsman on Sunday as chairman of the Western governors group, agreed that, for many, the reality of climate change remains unproven.

Some people “think it’s a bunch of hooey,” he said in an interview. “You just have to get in my pickup truck and ride around with me a little bit. The debate is not over.”

And the Deseret News noted what Vilsack has heard:

The closest any of the participants came to talking about any disagreement with climate change was U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who said farmers and ranchers are “extremely skeptical of all this” because of their concern over costs. “I think we have an argument to make,” Vilsack said.

Chu was undeterred (as the Salt Lake Tribune reported):

But Chu was matter of fact. Climate change is real and happening faster than scientists previously warned.

“The news is getting scary,” said the Nobel Prize-winning physicist. “But the most scary thing in my mind is the [scientific] observations. People can be entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

Chu apparently brought along his own facts, and the ones like no global temperature increase in 10 years and no sign of climate change in the Antarctic ice shelves, he left at home. Thank God for Herbert’s presence (as the Deseret News reported):

“I’ve heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for,” Herbert said. “People say man’s impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive….”

“What are we doing to bring people together?” Herbert asked. “Is there a hidden agenda out there? Help me understand the science.”

Herbert acknowledged he’s new to the association’s discussions and said he didn’t want to be contrary. But he said polls have shown the public is divided on the issue.

All Chu and Sutley were interested in helping the governors understand was their one-sided alarmist propaganda.

Announcements

The deadline for the public comment period on the EPA’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare is June 23^rd. You may submit comments here.

In the News

Carbon Geography
Michael I. Cragg & Matthew E. Kahn, 10 June 2009

The UN’s Climate of Futility
Patrick Michaels, Planet Gore, 10 June 2009

Behind the Cap-and-Trade Curtain
Max Schulz, National Review, 9 June 2009

Review of New Books by Lawson and Stern
Myron Ebell, Standpoint, June 2009

Plan To Fight Global Warming-Pie in the Sky
Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times, 9 June 2009

CO2 Is Hot Air
Chris Horner, Washington Times, 9 June 2009

Taxing Cows
Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, 9 June 2009

Texas Blasts Federal Efforts to Fight Global Warming
Russell Gold, 9 June 2009

Cap-and-Trade: The New Subprime Scam?
Rachel Morris, Mother Jones, 8 June 2009

Buried Code
Washington Post Editorial, 7 June 2009

News You Can Use

It Could Happen Here

According to the Herald Sun, Australian police will be forced to become “carbon cops” under the Government’s blueprint to cut greenhouse emissions.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Update on House Energy Rationing Bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) are making mighty efforts to get the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill to the House floor before the Fourth of July recess, which is scheduled to begin on 26^th June. The main obstacle to passage appears to be a group of moderate Democrats centered in the Agriculture Committee and led by Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the Committee’s Chairman. Peterson claimed to have forty-five votes as he started horse trading with Pelosi and Waxman. I expect that the Democratic leadership will come up with enough votes to pass H. R. 2454 narrowly and with only a handful of Republican votes. They are rushing because they realize that the bill could implode at any time.  Should you care to tell your Representative whether to vote Yes or No on H. R. 2454, the Capitol switchboard number is (202) 225-3121.  Live operators will connect you to your Member even if you don’t know his name if you give your zip code.

Republicans Introduce a Pro-energy Bill

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled the latest version of their pro-energy bill, the American Energy Act. The bill would increase domestic energy production, particularly oil and gas on federal lands and offshore areas, and includes no rationing provisions.  This could be the Republican substitute amendment when Waxman-Markey comes to the floor. It would draw a very clear distinction between Republicans, who think we need to increase access to energy, and Democrats, who think we need to force people to pay much more and use much less energy.

Boxer Wants Energy Rationing Bill by August

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced on Thursday that she plans to mark up the Senate version of Waxman-Markey in her committee before the August recess. Right now, there are probably enough votes to move the bill out of committee, but support in the full Senate looks far short of the 60 necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote. It’s not even clear to me that generic cap-and-trade legislation has majority support in the Senate.

California Scheming

California, the world leader in energy rationing (after North Korea, Cuba, etc.), now looks likely to go bankrupt by the end of July.  Californians Pelosi, Waxman, and Boxer are actively promoting at the federal level the policies that are contributing to the decline of the once-Golden State.

CBO’s Scoring of Waxman-Markey’s Cap-and-Tax Bill

Julie Walsh

The Congressional Budget Office released a report on June 5th detailing the costs and revenues of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, before the House. Noticeably absent, however, is analysis of the effects of Renewable Electricity Credits (RECs) and the domestic and international offset credits. These should force up costs for consumers and therefore reduce economic growth and federal revenues.

Highlights:
The bill gives away over three-quarters of the rationing coupons, auctioning off just 18 percent until 2020. CBO estimates in the first ten years the bill would bring in revenues of $845.6 billion, but increase federal spending by $821.2 billion-a $24.4 billion net gain over ten years.

The amount of coupons auctioned actually drops from 29.6% in 2012 and 2013 to 17.5% through 2019, while the free allocations (i.e., windfall profits) increase to 82.5%.

The new carbon market would exceed $60 billion by 2012.

CBO expects that some regions of the country-particularly the southeast-would probably not generate sufficient RECs to satisfy the federal standard, and therefore, would choose to make compliance payments.

More highlights are here.

Around the World

Backpedaling in Bonn

Last week’s Cooler Heads Digest reported that negotiations in Bonn for a successor climate treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol actually regressed, because a European Union official unexpectedly backed off the EU’s promise to reduce emissions 20% by 2020.

This week we are pleased to report that negotiations deteriorated even further during the second half of the Bonn talks. On Monday, Japan unilaterally unveiled its greenhouse gas emissions target: 8% below 1990 levels by 2020. According to BBC News, green groups called the Japanese commitment “appalling.” They had been lobbying Japan and other industrialized nations to cut emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official, was stunned by the meagerness of Japan’s targets. For the first time in two years, “I don’t know what to say,” he admitted to the New York Times. Later, he told AFP that he believed it was impossible to meet the deadline for a global treaty by the 15^th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change this December in Copenhagen.

Dr. Doom Goes to China

Also at Bonn, Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate envoy, and White House Science Advisor Dr. John P. Holdren met with Chinese negotiators for bilateral climate talks. Details of the meeting are scant (an anonymous source told the China Daily that there was “limited progress“), but it is likely that the talks were strained-Dr. Holdren is an environmental extremist who once advocated industrial “de-development,” whereas rapid industrialization is China’s #1 priority.

Duncan Campbell, chief financial officer for Vancouver (B.C.) Coastal Health Authority, responded in the comments section of my post from Thursday and I thought since he was a central character in the blog, it was appropriate to elevate his comments to their own post. Here they are:

I’m the Chief Financial Officer at Vancouver Coastal Health. I’d like to clarify some facts about how we budget to care for our patients. There will be no cuts to patient services in any of our hospitals as a result of the carbon tax and offsets. This year we are paying $800,000 in carbon tax and offsets, out of a total annual budget of $2.8 billion. Yes, our total bill might be $2 million next year, but we will cover this through conservation measures and administrative cost efficiencies. In fact, last year through technology upgrades we cut our ongoing utility bills by $450,000 per year and we have more of these projects in the pipeline. We don’t need to make reductions to patient care to pay these taxes.

The original article discussed the carbon tax and offsets obligations by two B.C. health authorities: The one Mr. Campbell works for, which serves the Vancouver Metro area and thus a larger population, and Fraser Health Authority, which serves fewer people but is growing much faster. The story explained Fraser Health’s budget strains, which are not helped by the carbon taxes and offsets.  I emailed Surrey Leader reporter Jeff Nagel, who explained:

Fraser is where the rapid growth of the region is happening (outer suburbs) and the resulting intense cost pressures.

Vancouver Coastal (closer to inner core) is slower growth. Fraser is the largest region in the province by population.

I think the two admin teams on the two health authorities have been increasingly working together on a range of issues.

Provincial government calls the shots here, so it can add or reassign budget as it wishes or dictate the partial or full merger of the two authorities. It’s not a scenario whereby Fraser is weak financially and forced into the arms of its neighbour at terms set by VCHA, if that’s what you’re thinking.

Fears of the merger are fairly high in Vancouver Coastal in part because some folks there think one hospital (St Paul’s) may be closed and patients relocated east to facilities in Fraser if necessary.

So getting down to details, while Campbell’s claim that the carbon costs are not affecting VCHA patient services at the moment — and assuming it is not forced into a marriage with Fraser or its budget isn’t cut — then he may be correct. However looking at the situation where the real decisions will be made — at the provincial government level — it looks like resources for patient services will suffer overall. And why couldn’t resources devoted to unneeded and useless carbon taxes and offsets be directed instead to other, currently unmet patient service needs?

Correction from Jeff Nagel, 5:00 p.m.: “To clarify further, Vancouver Coastal actually serves the smaller population, a little under 1.1 million, although its budget of $2.8 billion is higher.

Fraser Health Authority = 1.5 million residents, $2.4 billion.

Here’s a previous story, for your info, on claims/counterclaims about potential cuts in Fraser.