Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

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In a statement today, the Democrat said the study, released over the weekend, neglects key historical document and “severely downplays the established links between adverse health effects and exposure to [volatile organic compounds] that were present in the water at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

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.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal reports today about a simmering controversy within the Western Governors Association, which holds its annual meeting this weekend, over how the WGA used resources and manpower to work on the development of the Western Climate Initiative. As Fund learned from one Western governor, WGA is supposed to operate on a consensus of its members:

(The governor) says the WGA’s involvement in planning climate change proposals is serious overreach. “The dues states give WGA come from tax money and I was surprised to learn just how much the WGA seems to be getting ahead of many of the states on carbon regulation,” he told [Fund].

Other governors were unaware of the extent of the WGA/WCI collaborative work as well, and some — perhaps Gov. Palin of Alaska, Gov. Gibbons of Nevada and Gov. Otter of Idaho — may not be happy about what else they learn.

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., the pending appointee of President Obama’s as ambassador to China, will chair the WGA proceedings this weekend. A Schwarzeneggar clone on climate, he may get an earful.

Looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government. The Surrey Leader reports:

The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.

Critics say the payments mean the government’s strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.

“You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency,” NDP health critic Adrian Dix said.

“That just doesn’t make sense.”

The Fraser Health Authority will pay $616,000 in carbon tax this year, rising to $821,000 next year, officials there said.

And by 2010 Fraser will also be paying $1.3 million a year to the province’s Pacific Carbon Trust to offset its projected 52,600 tonnes of carbon emissions released….

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority also expects its costs will be close to $2 million next year in combined carbon tax and offset payments.

And while human life is threatened, of course, the stated objective of global warming kooks is once again undermined:

Dix warned that some of the potential cuts – such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital – would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.

“Obviously when you shut down regional centres it makes people travel farther to get to their health care facility,” he said.

Meanwhile a hospital executive states his greater concern for plant life than heartbeats:

Vancouver Coastal chief financial officer Duncan Campbell said his health authority believes the payments are appropriate and isn’t asking for any exemption from Victoria.

“For us to go back and ask for an exemption wouldn’t fit in well with our green care plans,” he said.

Did they hire this guy away from Planned Parenthood?

Earlier this week our Climate Depot pal Marc Morano caught an anonymous blogger for Talking Points Memo, who calls himself (or herself) “The Insolent Braggart” (with the URL extension “crazedandconfused”), with a post that called for the jailing or execution of “global warming deniers.” The post’s entire text:

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing f***tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?

The same day I read that post, I checked out “Insolent Braggart’s” archive page at TPM, where several of his previous posts were listed. Today his page remains, but all previous record of his posts have been scrubbed from the site. Apparently the call for a skeptics’ gallows was too much even for the brash clan at TPM.

Take a look at the Environmental Defense Fund’s last two IRS tax returns, Form 990s, available from the nonprofit archiver Guidestar (subscription required). You can see from clips that in fiscal year ending September 2007 (PDF) the group took in more than $85 million in total revenue (with $23.7 million spent on global warming initiatives), and in 2008 (PDF) EDF received almost $123 million in revenue ($34.8 million spent on global warming initiatives).

You’d think with these massive resources that this litigative behemoth could put together a reasonably legible report to the IRS, but you’d be wrong. If you read EDF’s 2007 and 2008 statements of primary exempt purpose and program service accomplishments, you find that they deliver the information in a manner that is the bane of every grade school english teacher’s existence: in one long, multiple-page run-on sentence. In fact, it’s not even a run-on sentence — it’s a mish-mash of comments and claims about accomplishments that is almost completely devoid of punctuation. And it has no paragraph breaks.

Clearly EDF does not want anybody to read what they’ve been up to, whether it’s people like me who scrutinize people like them, or IRS agents. I can just picture some poor bureaucrat who reviews these things all day long, taking a look at their juvenile reporting and saying “Forget it!” Instead the IRS ought to send back their 990s and say, “We expect better. Do it over.”

Chief Financial Officer Peter Accinno, who almost certainly earns in the same six-figure salary neighborhood as his fellow EDF executives, should be embarrassed for signing off on such an unprofessional report.

On Tuesday Duke Energy filed a request with the North Carolina Utilities Commission to raise its electricity rates by 13.5 percent. The Charlotte Observer reports:

Duke said growing capital expenses make the increases necessary. Those include the costs of installing pollution controls at two plants and financing its Cliffside plant (an upgraded coal-fired plant west of Charlotte that environmental groups are trying to halt).

Duke also cited the coming expense of modernizing its system and meeting an expected cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

How much of the additional costs are attributable to the GHG cap, much of which is in the form of a state-mandated renewable portfolio standard and other “green” energy initiatives? I am awaiting an answer on that from a state industry group that studies these things, but in the meantime we might find some clues in a story about a solar energy program administered by Progress Energy, the other major investor-owned utility in North Carolina:

Progress Energy plans to offer up to $20,000 to customers who install rooftop solar panels, helping cut the total cost of one of the most expensive forms of green energy by 75 percent.

The Raleigh power company announced the solar incentives Wednesday as part of a broader solar program that will help businesses and schools defray the cost of installing solar energy. Progress is introducing the programs to comply with a 2007 state law requiring a greater reliance on renewables and conservation to meet the state’s energy demand….

The Progress rebate will amount to $2 per watt of solar energy, topping out at 10 kilowatts, or $20,000. That will cover about 25 percent of the cost of the panels. Combined with available federal and state incentives for solar energy, a homeowner’s savings would come to about three-quarters of the total cost.

A typical household solar rooftop array produces 2.5 kilowatts to 5 kilowatts, which would qualify for $5,000 to $10,000 from Progress.

Still, even with the Progress sweetener, it will take as long as a decade to recoup the cost of the investment, said Bob Kingery, co-founder of Southern Energy Management, a Cary solar panel installer.

Duke Energy has a program that will likely look very similar. That such a heavy subsidy — paid by the utilities’ regular ratepayers — still does not come close to covering the costs of alternative energy speaks volumes about the stupid, nonsensical economic reports about green jobs and economic growth  by groups like the Center for Climate Strategies.