July 2009

Today, Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi shines a light on Obama “science czar” John Holdren’s disturbing past pronouncements — which Marc Scribner wrote about here just yesterday. Holdren, as Harsanyi notes, participated in the famous bet between eco-doomsayer Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon, over whether the price for five selected metals would rise or fall. (The bet is the foundation for the design of CEI’s Julian Simon Award.)

Holdren was asked by Ehrlich to pick five natural resources that would experience shortages due to human consumption. He lost the bet on all counts, as the composite price index for the commodities he picked, like copper and chromium, fell by more than 40 percent.

Then again, it’s one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer and it’s quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution . . .,” as Holdren did in “Ecoscience” in 1977.

The book, in fact, is sprinkled with comparable statements that passively discuss how coercive population control methods might rescue the world from … well, humans.

When I called Holdren’s office, I was told that the czar “does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility.”

If that is so, I wondered, why is his name on a textbook that brought up such policy? Did he not write that part? Did he change his mind? Was it theoretical?

Harsannyi presents one possible explanation, which is hardly satisfactory in any morally sensible way.

When, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren was asked about his penchant for scientific overstatements, he responded, “The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time.”

“Motivation” is when Holdren tells us that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Or when he claimed that sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century when your run-of-the-mill alarmist warns of only 13 inches.

“Motivating” — or, in other words, scaring the hell out of people — about “possibilities” is an ideological and political weapon unsheathed in the effort to pass policies that, in the end, coerce us to do the right thing, anyway.

For more on Holdren, see here.

In a piece in today’s State Journal-Register, noted economist and commentator Walter Williams asks: “Why the rush to OK ‘cap and trade’ in the Senate?”  He addresses the major push now under way to pass the Waxman-Markey climate legislation through the Senate since it passed the House a couple of weeks ago.  In this quote he lays exactly what is at stake with this issue:

“Cap and trade” is first a massive indirect tax on the American people and hence another source of revenue for Congress. More importantly “cap and trade” is just about the most effective tool for controlling most economic activity short of openly declaring ourselves a communist nation and it’s a radical environmentalist’s dream come true.

He also mentions the EPA cover up story CEI broke just before the bill passed the House.  The EPA stifled the release of an internal report by one of its analysts that conflicted with what we have been told about global warming, for what look to be purely political reasons.  Take a look at the column, and related links, and see what you think.

It’s Getting Cold Out There
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 11 July 2009

No wonder skeptics consider the left’s belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion – last week in Italy, G-8 leaders pledged not to allow the Earth’s temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Climate Bill Ineffective
Kathryn Gaines, Human Events, 13 July 2009

House Democratic leaders must be in a state of shock. The EPA announced that the Waxman-Markey Bill, the cap-and-trade bill, would not “materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere.” Why then are Americans being asked to take on $9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) worth of spending from 2012-2050 for nothing?

The Cap-and-Tax Disaster
Sarah Palin, Washington Post, 14 July 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

In the News

Congress Gives Your Money to T Boone Pickens
Tim Carney, Washington Examiner, 10 July 2009

Warming Debate Simmers While Obama Poses in Europe
The Oklahoman editorial, 10 July 2009

Global Warming Alarmism Enriches Al Gore, Bankrupts the Rest of Us
Ron Smith, Baltimore Sun, 10 July 2009

Democrats Walk a Fine Line on Tariffs
Zack Hale, National Journal, 9 July 2009

Greenpeace Defaces Abe Lincoln with Alarmist Banner
News Wire Services, 9 July 2009

Smart Grid or Strong Grid?
Robert Michaels, MasterResource.org, 8 July 2009

Climate Czarina Tells GM, “Put nothing in writing”
Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner, 8 July 2009

G-8 on Climate Change: Non-change I Can Believe in
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 8 July 2009

Markey’s Moment
John Carlisle, American Spectator, 6 July 2009

Au Revoir to the American Car
Myron Ebell, Washington Times, 5 July 2009

Green Nonsense
Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 5 July 2009

Solar Power Is Looking Dim
Iain Murray, Washington Examiner, 3 July 2009

News You Can Use

The Gore Effect

At ClimateDepot.com, Marc Morano reports on the latest incidence of the “Gore Effect,” the remarkably frequent occurrence of exceedingly cold weather whenever and wherever former Vice-President Al Gore travels to talk about global warming. Next week, Gore will be in Melbourne to launch a new alarmist organization, “Safe Climate Australia”; this week, temperatures in Melbourne hovered around zero degrees Centigrade. For a detailed history of the “Gore Effect,” click here.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Senate Begins Work on Energy Rationing Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on cap-and-trade legislation on Tuesday, 7th July. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar all testified on behalf of the Obama Administration in favor of cap-and-trade, but the Republicans’ only witness, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, stole the show. His written testimony and that of the other witnesses can be found here. In response to a question from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee’s ranking Republican, Administrator Jackson said that the EPA’s analysis was that actions by the United States alone to reduce emissions will not affect global C02 levels. Secretary Chu disagreed with the EPA’s analysis.

EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had announced that the committee would start marking up their bill on 22nd July and that she planned to be finished before the August recess, which is scheduled to begin on 7th August. But then Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that all committees needed to be finished with their pieces of comprehensive energy-rationing legislation by 18th September. That quickly slipped to 28th September. So now it looks like the EPW Committee won’t begin marking up its version of Waxman-Markey until September.

Green Jobs Nonsense

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s European Affairs Subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday on the European Union’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation set the record straight in his testimony, which can be found here. Ben told me that Senator Barbara Boxer, who is a member of the full committee but not the subcommittee, came in towards the end of the hearing and remarked that despite all of California’s economic problems, the one bright spot is the state’s alternative energy jobs. “Where would we be without them?”  Good question.  What is the effect of raising the costs of production by raising energy prices? Higher prices, fewer sales, lower production, job losses, less investment in new production, less money in people’s pockets to spend on other things. Unemployment in California, which used to be below the national average, is now well above the national average at over 12%.

The EPA Cover-Up-the Saga Continues

Sam Kazman
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.

A good, short, succinct summary of why Rep Lamar Smith (R.-KY) voted against Cap-and-Tax.

Hat-tip: The Chilling Effect

Very interesting, but of course unscientific*, poll of hybrid vehicle owners over at HybridCarBlog.  It turns out that very few hybrid owners bought their hybrid because of global warming fears:

So far, there have been more than 28,000 responses to the poll and the results are a little surprising. 37 percent of respondents picked foreign oil dependency, 29 percent cool technology, 27 percent car pool lane access, but only 7 percent picked global warming.

Certainly, everyone I know in Northern Virginia who bought a hybrid did so because of the (no longer available) HOV lane access, but I am a little surprised and gratified to see that over 50 percent of hybrid purchasers made their decision based on personal rather than political considerations.

More importantly, however, as the post author notes, this suggests that car companies are missing a huge marketing bonanza by concentrating so heavily on save-the-planet considerations in their advertising campaigns.  If we really want to see hybrid technology develop and become more affordable, the auto makers need to wise up to this.  Of course, with the major American automakers (apart from Ford) now substantially owned by politicians and their allies, the chances of this happening are slight.

*So take it with a grain of salt

CEI President Fred Smith talks about the recent passage of climate legislation in Congress.  Read it here.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may require corporations to assess and disclose the impacts of global warming and climate change policy on their bottom lines, today’s Climate Wire (subscription required) reports. The story indicates that Commissioner Elisse Walter is the key proponent inside the SEC. The big outside push–no surprise–comes from Ceres, the eco-sustainability investment network. Wisconsin insurance regulator Sean Dilweg and Maryland Treasurer Nancy Kopp are also cited as leading advocates of SEC-mandated “climate risk disclosure.”

Climate Wire rightly notes that, “The move would drive the government deeper into the climate debate, potentially reshaping management decisions at companies across the country.”

The prospect of SEC-required disclosure of climate risk scares the bejesus out of fossil energy producers and energy-intensive manufacturers, Climate Wire indicates:

Big emitters like oil and gas companies, for example, might have to formally reveal the output of their greenhouse gases and the disadvantages they face from federal efforts to charge polluters for every ton of carbon that’s released.

Even more, the revelations could spark financial fallout. Institutional investment groups with trillions of dollars in assets could use the disclosures as the basis for withdrawing money from companies they consider unprepared for rising risk related to regulation and climatic convulsions.

In reality, there is little risk to company bottom lines from climate change per se. Even if one makes the questionable assumption, for example, that global warming will measurably intensify tropical storms over the next few decades, climate risk will always exceed climate change risk by a wide margin. For instance, due to completely natural climatic factors, a company in Florida has a much greater vulnerability to hurricane strikes and damages than a company in Ohio, regardless of how climate changes. Yet this does not stop people and businesses from moving to Florida, enjoying good weather most of the time, and building a prosperous society.

No, the really serious climate risks are policy-related. For example, the application of Clean Air Act permitting rules to stationary sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions–the inescapable consequence of EPA establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles in response to the Supreme Court’s April 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision–would potentially expose 1.2 million previously unregulated firms to new controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.

Moreover, the endangerment finding prerequisite to EPA adoption of GHG controls for motor vehicles could also compel the agency to promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for GHG-related “air pollution.” Logically, NAAQS for GHGs would have to be set below current atmospheric levels and, thus, could not be attained even if EPA shut down every car, power plant, and factory in the United States.

Once the regulatory cascade starts, climate policy risk to the U.S. economy could function as a gigantic, permanent, Anti-Stimulus Package. For the gory details, see my comment on EPA’s Endangerment Proposal, especially pp. 33-48.

It’s not enough for Ceres and other eco-zealots to clobber big emitters and industrial energy consumers with costly regulation. They also want those companies to scare away investors in advance of climate regulation via public disclosure of the potential burdens.

However, the Ceres strategy could backfire. If the SEC adopts the Ceres plan, targeted corporations should use the mandated information to publicize the destructive impacts of climate regulations on jobs, growth, investment, and shareholder value. Such information would reveal that the risks of climate policy vastly outweigh the risks of climate change. It could and should fuel a broad-based political backlash against the self-anointed saviors of Planet Earth.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may require corporations to assess and report the impacts of global warming and climate change policy on their bottom lines, today’s Greenwire (subscription required) reports. The story indicates that Commissioner Elisse Walter is a key proponent inside the agency. The big outside push–no surprise–comes from Ceres, eco-sustainability investment network. Wisconsin insurance regulatory Sean Dilweg and Maryland Treasurer Nancy Kopp are also mentioned as leading advocates of SEC-mandated “climate risk disclosure.”

Greenwire rightly notes that, “The move would drive the government deeper into the climate debate, potentially reshaping management decisions at companies across the country.”

Greenwire indicates that the SEC, stung by criticism that its lax regulation contributed to the financial crisis, now views an assertive stance on climate risk as a way to shore up its image.

The prospect of SEC-required disclosure of climate risk scares the bejesus out of fossil energy producers and energy-intensive manufacturers, Greenwire says:

Big emitters like oil and gas companies, for example, might have to formally reveal the output of their greenhouse gases and the disadvantages they face from federal efforts to charge polluters for every ton of carbon that’s released.

Even more, the revelations could spark financial fallout. Institutional investment groups with trillions of dollars in assets could use the disclosures as the basis for withdrawing money from companies they consider unprepared for rising risk related to regulation and climatic convulsions.

But the CERES agenda may be too clever by half. Disclosure of climate risk could cut against the global warming movement, by revealing the potential of regulatory climate policy to wreck the economy.

For example, the application of Clean Air Act permitting rules to stationary sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions–an inescapable consequence of EPA establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles in response to the Supreme Court’s April 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision–would potentially expose an estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated firms to new controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.

Moreover, the endangerment finding prerequisite to EPA adoption of GHG controls for motor vehicles could also compel the Agency to promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for GHG-related “air pollution.” Logically, NAAQS for CO2 and other GHGs would have to be set below current atmospheric levels and, thus, could not be attained even if EPA shut down every car, power plant, and factory in the United States. Once the regulatory cascade starts, “climate policy risk” to the U.S. economy could easily become a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package. For the gory details, see my comment on EPA’s endangerment proposal, especially pp. 33-48.

It’s not enough for Ceres and other eco-zealots to clobber fossil energy producers and energy-intensive manufacturers with costly regulation. They want those companies to scare away investors in advance of climate regulations via public disclosure of the potential burdens. However, the Ceres strategy could backfire, because targeted corporations could use the mandated information to publicize the destructive impacts of climate policy on jobs, growth, investment, and shareholder value. Such information would reveal that the risks of climate policy vastly outweigh those of climate change.