July 2009

In a  piece today about the Western Governors Association’s management of the Western Climate Initiative, I explain how there is a lack of enthusiasm from many of WGA’s members for WCI. I cited the criticism of cap-and-trade by two of the governors — Sarah Palin of Alaska and Rick Perry of Texas, both Republicans — as examples where they oppose the type of policy in WCI that they support via WGA. I discovered this afternoon another example of a WGA member doing the same thing: Democrat Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming. AP reports via the Casper Tribune:

Freudenthal’s long-held position on climate change legislation has been that it should provide certainty about the future regulation of greenhouse emissions. More certainty should encourage companies to invest in building power plants and other energy projects, he has said.

The climate change bill doesn’t provide that certainty, Freudenthal said Wednesday.

Freudenthal’s hardly against the limitation of carbon emissions, but he’s clearly stated his opposition to cap-and-tax of the type that WCI administers.

I just returned from Capitol Hill, where I attended a briefing by the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Dr. David Kreutzer, on modeling the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act.

Here’s the take-away:

You probably have heard House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) claim that a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme will cost Americans “only a postage stamp a day.” Her assertion is based on two economic studies, one by the Congressional Budget Office, and the other by the Environmental Protection Agency. Each study is grossly flawed, but in different ways.

The CBO study ignores the impact of a cap-and-trade on Gross Domestic Product, which is like trying to calculate a baseball player’s batting average without including singles or doubles. Of course the CBO underestimates the economic impact of Waxman-Markey-it ignores the fact that expensive energy makes everything made with energy more expensive, which is everything.

The EPA study generates such a low cost for cap-and-trade energy rationing by using an accounting trick called “discounting.” It’s complicated, but the important point to remember is that no other reputable study-not the CBO’s, not the liberal leaning Brookings Institute’s, not the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce’s-uses this trick, and without it, the EPA’s cost calculation soars.

Global warming alarmists steadfastly refuse to consider the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation despite (or perhaps because of) evidence that expensive-energy policies to fight global warming are worse for human welfare than rising temperatures. Whenever a reputable economist states the obvious-that “greening” the global economy is expensive and difficult-environmentalists respond by noting that an economist is not a climate scientist, and the science is settled, because there is a consensus. The environmentalist’s riposte is gibberish, of course, but it has the effect of subtly smearing the aforementioned economist and obscuring the economic consensus that climate change mitigation is economically harmful.

In light of this tactic, it is interesting that Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the Guardian that “the cost” of fighting global warming, “could undoubtedly be negative overall.” That is, we can make money by enacting expensive energy policies to fight global warming, presumably by having the government create millions of so-called “green jobs.”

How would Mr. Pachauri know? He is neither an economist not a climate scientist. In fact, he is a railroad engineer by trade, which, evidently, is a suitable background for the head of the world’s preeminent body of global warming scientists.

In the News

A Cap-and-Trade Warning from Europe
Member of European Parliament Holger Kramer, Washington Times, 17 July 2009

Update on EPA Saga
Sam Kazman, GlobalWarming.org, 17 July 2009

Al and Friends Create a Climate of McCarthyism
Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 16 July 2009

A Real Choice on Climate Change: Do Nothing
William Yeatman, TownHall, 16 July 2009

Study Casts Doubt on Alarmist Climate Models
Doyle Rice, USA Today, 16 July 2009

Granting Environmental Indulgences
Robert P. Kerchhoefer, American Spectator, 15 July 2009

California’s Global Warming Policy Is Not One To Follow
Nick Loris, The Foundry, 14 July 2009

The Cap-and-Trade Dead End
Sarah Palin, Washington Post, 14 July 2009

Cap-and-Trade Bill Ineffective
Kathryn Gaines, Human Events, 13 July 2009

“The Cheaper the Energy, the Better”
Julian Simon (from 1993), reprinted by MasterResource.org, 13 July 2009

John Holdren: Margaret Sanger Redux?
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com, 10 July 2009

News You Can Use

A Real Scientific Consensus

University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. this week blogged about a recent Pew poll of American scientists showing that 55% identify as Democrats, 32% as Independents, and 6% as Republicans.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell
Energy-rationing legislation has been moved to the back burner by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the Obama Administration. The Senate and the House are now concentrating on moving health care “reform” legislation as quickly as they can.  The announced goal of having a health care bill passed by the Senate and maybe even the House before the August recess is clearly out of reach, which means that both chambers will still be working on health care in September as well as trying to finish work on various appropriations bills. Reid has told the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction that they should have their pieces of comprehensive energy-rationing legislation ready by 28th September. That doesn’t mean that Reid will bring the bill to the floor in October, but rather that he will then be ready to bring it to the floor if and when sixty votes in favor can be assembled.

This slippage in the schedule is due I think mostly to the public reaction to passage of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. The House Democratic leadership had to rush the bill to the House floor and pass it before people could find out what’s in it. But word started to get out quite quickly. I have heard several reports that quite a few Members who voted for Waxman-Markey were given hostile receptions by voters in their districts over the Fourth of July recess. A few at least are being hammered. Senators naturally hear about how voters are reacting in their States, and so it’s not surprising that several Senators are sounding less supportive of cap-and-trade than they did in June 2008 when they voted for the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill. In recent days, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) have expressed their reservations about voting for cap-and-trade again.  Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) voted against Lieberman-Warner, but were considered possible yes votes this year. Both have already announced that they oppose anything resembling Waxman-Markey.

It’s much too early to conclude that cap-and-trade is dead in the water, but it looks to be swimming against a fairly strong current.

Across the States

California

Citing uncompetitive business conditions (read: high energy prices), Toyota signaled this week that it plans to stop manufacturing cars in California, according to Henry Payne at Planet Gore.  This follows General Motors’ announcement last month that it would pull out of the NUMMI plant in Fremont which it has jointly operated with Toyota since 1984.  Approximately five thousand workers will lose their jobs if Toyota closes the Fremont plant.  California’s unemployment rate is already above 12% and still climbing.  Bills have quickly been introduced in the state legislature to provide tax breaks to Toyota to keep the plant open.

Given the state’s huge budget deficit, it’s not clear how they can pay for millions of dollars of tax breaks or whether the tax breaks would make up for other anti-business policies soon coming into force. A study by the Public Utilities Commission released last month estimated that the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard-a law that forces consumers to buy more expensive “green” energy-will raise electricity prices 25% by 2020. Although Californians continue to buy cars and trucks (1.4 million in 2008), Fremont is the last plant in California that produces automobiles. Toyota and General Motors may be getting out just in time.

Around the World

Obama’s Climate “Solution”: Pay China?

Rapidly developing countries are projected to account for the preponderance of future increases in global greenhouse gas emissions, but they have a moral right to grow their economies unencumbered by expensive emissions controls. U.S President Barack Obama seems to have a “solution”: Send China taxpayer money. During bilateral talks in China this week, Gary Locke, Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, said that, “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America-and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” as reported by Reuters. The Obama administration is asking a lot of the taxpayer-the International Energy Agency estimates that it would cost $45 trillion to “green” the global economy. I wonder if China will lend us the money.

UK’s Economic Suicide: It Could Happen Here.
The United Kingdom’s Labor Government this week unveiled a Renewable Energy Strategy and Low Carbon White Paper, which sets out how each sector of the economy will help to meet the overall target of a 34 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020. Peter Odell, professor of international energy studies at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, told Reuters that “The targets the UK is setting are almost impossible to meet and they are being developed at a cost that is going to affect consumer prices significantly.” At the same time that the Labor Party announced its green goals, the wind manufacturer Vestas closed a turbine factory in Newport, Isle of Wight, in order to move production overseas to China, according to The Times.

CEI’s Exposure of the EPA Cover-Up-the Saga Continues

On June 23d, the last day for public comment in EPA’s Endangerment Docket, CEI unveiled a series of amazing EPA emails which demonstrated that the agency had squelched an internal report critical of its position on global warming. We sent out our first news release on this the next morning.  A day later, Rep. Joe Barton and other Republicans held a press conference on the issue, and Reps. Sensenbrenner and Issa issued statements decrying the cover-up.  CEI also released a draft version of the concealed report.   The next day, as the House debated the Waxman-Markey bill, Rep. Barton brought the issue up during floor debate as well.  At EPA, meanwhile, senior analyst Dr. Alan Carlin was given permission to post the final version of his report on his own website-EPA still refused to post it on the agency website.

CEI subsequently filed the final report with EPA, demanding that the agency reopen the comment period to allow the public to respond to both the report and to EPA’s atrocious behavior.  We have yet to hear back from the agency.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported our request, accusing the agency of running a “shell game” on the endangerment issue.

On the Senate side, Senators Inhofe, Barrasso and Thune weighed in with questions for EPA and requests for an IG investigation.  The issue was raised yet again during the Senate EPW July 7 hearing, at which Administrator Jackson lamely claimed that Dr. Carlin’s views had been circulated within the agency.  She did not explain why his report had been buried.

In terms of press coverage, there’ve been a growing number of articles, starting with a DowJones Newswire report and extending to other web and print media as well.  Two excellent pieces are a CBSNews Political Hotsheet article and a Wall St. Journal column by Kim Strassel.

In the past week there have been other major stories as well: syndicated columns by Debra Saunders (SF Chronicle) and Walter Williams; a superb UK Telegraph piece which put the suppressed study in an international context (comparing it to the Australian Parliament’s new doubts on global warming); a NYTimes/Greenwire online feature on Sen. Barrasso, describing his raising of this issue.

In Congress, EPA chief Lisa Jackson was confronted with the issue on July 7 at a Senate hearing.  Most recently, on July 16, the full Republican membership of a House investigations subcommittee formally demanded a full response on the matter from EPA.

CEI and the Pacific Research Institute recently co-hosted a Capitol Hill briefing on “California’s Meltdown” – the unprecedented combination of flawed economic, energy and environmental policies that have left the state with a massive budget deficit and facing even tougher times ahead.

Our keynote speaker was Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), a first term member of the House of Representatives but a 22-year veteran of the California state legislature. He was introduced by Cooler Heads Coalition chairman and CEI Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell:

After his speech Rep. McClintock took several questions from the audience:

The event continued with a panel discussion moderated by CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. and featuring commentary by Tom Tanton of the Pacific Research Institute, Jason Peltier of the Westlands Water District and Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation:

Fred and the panel also took questions afterward:

The Fecklessness of Climate Diplomacy
William Yeatman, RealClearWorld.com, 16 July 2009

The fecklessness of climate diplomacy was on full display last week at the Group of Eight summit of industrialized countries in Italy, where the international community simultaneously vowed to limit global warming and disavowed the necessary action to do so.

Al and Friends Create a Climate of McCarthyism
Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 16 July 2009

Discussions about global warming are marked by an increasing desire to stamp out “impure” thinking, to the point of questioning the value of democratic debate. But shutting down discussion simply means the disappearance of reason from public policy.

Could We Be Wrong about Global Warming?
Doyle Rice, USA Today, 16 July 2009

Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong? Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.  The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery

In today’s RealClearWorld, CEI Energy Policy Analyst, William Yeatman, talks about international attempts at climate diplomacy.  Read the piece here.

President Barack Obama’s White House Science Advisor Dr. John P. Holdren (also known as “Dr. Doom”) is back in the headlines. A clever blogger has made available passages from a book that Holdren cowrote more than 30 years ago, about how the world is going to end, which is his favorite topic. The excerpts from the book document Holdren’s wacky solution to the supposed apocalypse: population control.

During his long and infamous career, Holdren has warned that the end is nigh on account of “ecocide,” global warming due to direct heating from power plant, global cooling due to particulate aerosol emissions, nuclear winter, population growth, and now, global warming due to greenhouse gases. Needless to say, Holdren has been proven wrong time and time again.

Despite this long and infamous career, Obama chose Holdren to be his top adviser on science policy, but I bet the President will come to regret his decision. Holdren’s record of zany zingers will make excellent scandal fodder for as long as he remains at his post. To read more about Holdren, click here, which will take you to a webmemo on Holdren I wrote in January.