Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Democrat governors in support of cap-and-trade, that is.

You just bop around YouTube (and especially Sen. Inhofe’s neighborhood there) and there’s no telling what you’ll find. In a crowning height of hypocrisy, the chairman of the Western Governors Association and of the Democrat Governors Association, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, slammed cap-and-trade on Bill Maher’s show last week:

Maher: …it’s an incentive to make clean energy.

Schweitzer: Maybe.

Maher: Maybe?! (with incredulous emphasis)

Schweitzer: It also says to the biggest utilities in America, “We’re going to add a trillion dollars to your bottom line. We’re going to franchise you, and only you, to be the only producers of CO2.” I think it’s the wrong approach.

Maher: You do?! (more incredulity)

Schweitzer: Absolutely.

Maher: But isn’t that the Democrat approach?

Schweitzer: It might be some of the Democrats’ approach, but I think if you want to get to the root of the problem, you establish a price of the cost of that pollution to the rest of society….

Worse than fellow WGA Democrats Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and Bill Ritter of Colorado, Schweitzer joined the Western Climate Initiative — whose goal is a cap-and-trade agreement among member states (AZ, NM, CA, OR, WA, UT, and MT)!! Now he says out of one side of his mouth that it’s wrongheaded, while out of the other side he defends WCI (and WGA’s management of it) to the hilt.

What kind of craziness is going on at WGA? Do you have to be a Wild West Looney Tunes to be a member? Apparently pandering to all the environmental groups who run and fund the place has driven the governors nuts.

Cross-posted at American Spectator.

Note how Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter avoids the question from Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (YouTube embedded at Michelle Malkin’s site):

Inhofe: …are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?

(Insignificant exchange)

Ritter: Here’s what I support. I support a national energy policy that is married to a national climate policy. It gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions. And I believe that if you do that, that there will be some vehicle that looks not exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work, but I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050.

A whole lot of talk without saying anything, with it clear that Ritter won’t publicly acknowledge he supports Waxman-Markey. That’s because as Inhofe set up his question, he outlined how Colorado oil shale deposits would be put off limits by the bill (therefore severe economic consequences for the state, and political consequences for the governor), and he also detailed how W-M would harm farmers in eastern Colorado.

Curiously also, “green” Governor Ritter has failed to take the step of joining his enviro-left colleagues as members of the Western Climate Initiative, the regional cap-and-trade initiative, despite going to great lengths during his term to hone his global warming credentials. After noting Wyoming Democrat Gov. Dave Freudenthal’s position yesterday, that now makes two of the party’s governors holding their noses over Waxman-Markey.

When you hold their feet to the fire over the implications for their states, the big talkers on greenhouse gas emissions reduction cave.

Hat tip: Club for Growth‘s Andy Roth (via Facebook). Cross-posted at American Spectator.

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.

Scientists, that is.

Beacon Hill Institute has apparently shifted into overdrive this week. This is posted today:

Cutting CO2 emissions by 83% over four decades – as proposed in the Waxman-Markey Discussion draft – might appear to be an easy goal, but the results indicate otherwise. The first point to note is that such cutbacks, whether done by the U.S. alone or in concert with others, would all be more expensive than doing nothing at all.

If the United States were to cut emissions alone, with no cutbacks (relative to trend) by other countries, it would bear the full cost of abatement (PV = $3.85 trillion) while reaping only about $0.27 trillion in benefits. This represents a net cost, relative to doing nothing, of $3.42 trillion. It would cost the United States $154 billion by 2020 and $1.318 trillion by 2050.

By 2045, the tax on carbon would need to rise to $714 per metric ton of carbon (equivalent to $195 per metric ton of CO2) to induce consumers to make the necessary cutbacks; from Table 1 we see that this would add $1.73/gallon to the cost of gasoline (in 2005 dollars) and 6.7 to 14.9 cents to a kWh of electricity – essential doubling the retail price of electricity.

The benefits are modest because by 2050 the U.S. would account for less than a sixth of world emissions of CO2; reducing U.S. emissions by 83% (relative to the 2005 level) by then would cut global emissions by just 11%, which would have a modest effect on climate, moderating the increase in global temperature by 2100 from 3.30ºC (the baseline no-controls case) to 3.12º.

Beacon Hill has also done some state-by-state analysis, which can be reviewed at their Web site.

The Beacon Hill Institute, which has analyzed several studies of greenhouse gas emissions caps by global warming alarmists in the states, and also conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Western Climate Initiative, has today released its look at three green jobs studies (PDF). These expert economists reviewed previous studies by the United Nations Environment Programme (never trust anything produced by a program that adds “m-e” on the end — sure to be European), the Center for American Progress, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. BHI found, in part:

“Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow,” reported Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors….

The authors of the BHI critique identified a fundamental error in each of these studies, specifically “counting the creation of a green job as a benefit and rationale for its proposed program in and of itself.”

The BHI study also stresses that “Jobs ? green or otherwise ? are not benefits but are instead costs. If the green job is a net benefit it has to be because the value the job produces for consumers is greater than the cost of performing the job. This argument is never made in any of these three green jobs studies.”

The executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-author, David G. Tuerck, went further, noting that “these studies are based on arbitrary assumptions and use faulty methodologies to create an unreliable forecast for the future of green jobs.”

BHI also did a case study of the effect of a cap-and-trade emissions reduction on the states — examining Indiana — and found that “previous reports did not take increased energy costs from a ‘cap and trade’ system into consideration when looking at job creation. In that case, BHI developed a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model and found that contrary to previous studies, Indiana would lose more than 18,000 jobs in 2009, up to nearly 29,000 job losses in 2011, and that real disposable income would be cut by nearly $1 billion in 2009 and close to $1.5 billion in 2011.”

Congressmen on the fence are likely inundated by the data and studies by now — will it overcome the Pelosi/Obama political arm-twisting? We’ll likely know tomorrow.

That is, according to a poll of blacks by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Some findings per NCPPR’s press release:

The poll, released today, suggests anxiety in the black community over Waxman-Markey-style regulations.

The survey of 800 African-Americans included 640 self-identified Democrats (80%) and 32 Republicans (4%).

Among the poll’s key findings:

* 76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery its top priority, even if it delays action on climate change;

* 38% believe job losses resulting from climate change legislation would fall heaviest on the African-American community.  Only 7% believe job losses would fall heaviest on Hispanics and only 2% believe they would fall heaviest on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately take into account the economic and quality of life concerns of the African-American community when formulating climate change policy;

* 52% of respondents aren’t willing pay anything more for either gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas and 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions;

* African-Americans are virtually deadlocked on whether to proceed with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if doing so increases consumer prices and unemployment.

As NCPPR vice president (and my friend) David Ridenour says, “If concern about a Waxman-Markey-style climate change bill is running this high among group of predominantly Obama voters, it’s bound to be much higher among the general population….If Speaker Pelosi ignores these signs of discontent within her party’s base, she does so at her own peril.”

Last month we heard from the New York Times about the poll testing by the firm ecoAmerica that found the term “global warming” is no longer useful or scary enough for alarmists to use:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Now comes the Washington Times today with another report from Democratic advisers who confirm ecoAmerica’s findings, and suggest that other terms being used to push a cap-and-trade emissions reduction scheme are hurting their cause also:

House Democrats neared a deal Thursday on a bill to combat global warming, but a top party strategist warned that to sell any plan to voters they’ll need to change the way they pitch it — including curbing the use of the term “green” jobs and even talk of “global warming.”

In a strategy memo, Democratic think tank Third Way and top party strategist Stanley Greenberg warned Democrats that swing voters don’t care about fighting global warming, and said terms like “cap-and-trade” are useless. Instead, the memo suggests that Democrats tap into Americans’ optimism that clean energy can help improve the faltering economy.

“For most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform,” the memo says. “So while it can be part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it….”

But the strategists, in their memo, said the term “cap-and-trade” is “worse than meaningless” and is unfavorable to voters. Instead, Third Way and Mr. Greenberg’s firm argue for terms like “clean energy” and for branding the push against global warming under a new slogan of “Get America running on clean energy.”

What a farce. These clowns won Oscars and Grammys based on “global warming”; they pushed “cap-and-trade” because they said it promoted a “market-based” reduction plan; and they embraced “green” jobs because it implied the best of both worlds — high employment and a clean energy economy.

Now that they’ve captured all the government power, the terms they used to win their trophies are — as I wrote last month — a giant boat anchor. They can’t lie with the old terms any more so they have to make up new ones. And like the phony language they use, their cap-and-trade plan is also “worse than meaningless” — it’s destructive.

Cross-posted at American Spectator.

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.