William Yeatman

Matthew Sinclair’s “The Expensive Failure of the EU’s Cap-and Trade Scheme”” Video, ppt

by William Yeatman on November 10, 2009

in Blog

On Friday, November 6th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Matthew Sinclair, research director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Mr. Sinclair presented his new study,  “The Expensive Failure of the European Union’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme.” The study shows that the EU’s experience with energy rationing climate policies is a warning rather than a model.

Video of Mr Sinclair’s presentation, “The Expensive Failure of the EU’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme”

Power point Presentation of “The Expensive Failure of the EU’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme”

Cooler Heads Digest 6 November 2009

by William Yeatman on November 6, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

Announcements

A video of “Deconstructing Global Warming,” a Cooler Heads Coalition briefing by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is now available online at GlobalWarming.org.

In the News

Our Choice or Al Gore’s Choice?
Nick Loris, Heritage Foundry, 6 November 2009

Climate Policy Imperils China, India
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 5 November 2009

Election Defeats Make Dems Cautious on Climate
Jonathan Salant, Bloomberg, 5 November 2009

Remarks by Czech President Václav Klaus on Cap-and-Trade
Washington Times Briefing “Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy,” 4 November 2009

The Four Horsemen of Cap-and-Trade Defeatism
Chris Horner, Energy Tribune, 4 November 2009

The Economics of Climate Change: Essential Knowledge
Jerry Taylor, MasterResource.org, 4 November 2009

GW Alarmism Given Same Status as Religion
Stephen Adams & Louise Gray, Telegraph, 3 November 2009

Video: Stop Energy Rationing in Australia
Cori Bernardi, Herald Sun, 26 October 2009

News You Can Use

Expensive Failure of Cap-and-Trade in Europe

Between January 2005 and the end of 2008 the European Union’s cap-and-trade scheme cost consumers €93 ($123) billion or €185 ($245) per person, according to “The Expensive Failure of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme,” a new report by Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

EPW Passes Kerry-Boxer

The big news this week is that after days of partisan wrangling, the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday passed the Kerry-Boxer energy-rationing bill. The vote was eleven to one, with Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) the one no vote.  The committee’s seven Republicans boycotted the mark-up session and did not vote. Chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) high-handed tactics have so poisoned the Senate atmosphere that I think the Kerry-Boxer bill is now dead for the 111th Congress (which continues to the end of December 2010).

Under committee rules and precedents, no mark-up session can be held unless a majority of committee members including at least two members of the minority are present. The Republicans began boycotting the mark-up on Tuesday because, as the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), insisted, it was premature to mark up the bill because official cost estimates had not been completed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Chairman Boxer then had EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson meet with the committee.  She explained that it would take EPA several weeks to complete a full analysis of the bill, but that it didn’t matter because the bill was similar to the Waxman-Markey bill and therefore the costs would be similar. The problem with this claim is that the EPA’s analysis of Waxman-Markey underestimated the costs by making highly unrealistic assumptions. For example, EPA assumed that nuclear power would double by 2035.

Faced with the Republican boycott, Chairman Boxer interpreted the rules to the effect that two members of the minority were required to consider amendments, but not to vote on final committee passage.  So she then went ahead and marked up her “chairman’s mark” version of S. 1733 with no Republicans present. The problem I see here is that the chairman’s mark is an amendment to S. 1733 in the nature of a substitute. Thus I conclude that Chairman Boxer has violated her own interpretation of the committee’s rules.

It was obvious before Boxer went ahead with what Inhofe called the “nuclear option” that this would unite Republicans in opposition to the bill.  So I can only conclude that Boxer or the Democratic leadership have concluded that Kerry-Boxer is dead.  By voting it out of committee, they at least have something to take to COP-15 in Copenhagen in December.  Senator Baucus’s no vote is also significant.  As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he has as much jurisdiction over cap-and-trade legislation as does the EPW Committee.  He did not sound pleased with what Boxer was doing.

The U.S. Chamber Finds a New Leader

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce on November 3 sent a letter to Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman and Ranking Republican, respectively, of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that touted an op-ed published in the New York Times on October 11th by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as the way forward on energy-rationing legislation. The letter, signed by the Chamber’s executive vice president, Bruce Josten, said in part: “Senators Kerry and Graham have set forth a positive, practical and realistic framework for legislation, one that echoes the core principles that the Chamber embeds in all of its communications on climate policy. The Chamber agrees with a great deal of the principles set forth by Senators Kerry and Graham….”

The Chamber’s letter immediately made a big splash on Capitol Hill.  Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer read the letter into the record at one of the committee’s attempted mark-up sessions on the Kerry-Boxer bill and said, “This  really is a game-changer.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, which has masterminded the campaign against the Chamber that has included several major corporations withdrawing their memberships, praised the letter. My group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, did not.  We sent out a press release calling on small businesses to withdraw from the Chamber and join with us in continuing to fight against energy-rationing legislation.

The Chamber responded by saying that they hadn’t changed their position on what kind of legislation it would support.  That may be so, but the timing was clearly designed to boost the supporters of energy-rationing legislation-which it did.  Moreover, the Chamber has now identified Senators Kerry and Graham as the leaders on the issue that the Chamber will work with and follow.  The Chamber claims to support solid, workable, commonsense, realistic, and practical climate policies.  And John Kerry is just the Senator to lead us to those policies?  Solid, workable, realistic, practical, commonsense-yes, those are just the words that come to mind when Senator Kerry’s name comes up.

Across the States

Oregon Government Deliberately Underestimated Cost of Green Power by 40 Times

An investigation by the Oregonian shows that state officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Governor Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told.

Around the World

Copenhagen Already a Failure

Next month in Copenhagen, the United Nations will host negotiations for a treaty to mitigate climate change. The December conference was supposed to be the deadline for a final agreement, but diplomats are far apart on how to distribute the huge costs of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. This week, Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framewoprk Convention on Climate Change, told Bloomberg that too little progress has been made to conclude a treaty at a summit in Copenhagen next month, and that it may take another year.

Solar-Here Today and Gone Tomorrow

Julie Walsh

According to the Boston Globe, last year Evergreen Solar built a new factory in Massachusetts with $58 million in state aid, but is now shifting its assembly of solar panels from there to China. Plus Evergreen will be writing off $40 million in equipment, due to the move. The biggest irony in this story is that one main reason solar panel factories will move to China is that Chinese energy prices to assemble them are less!

Marlo Lewis goes further, “China is investing heavily in solar panel and wind turbine manufacture, but China does not cap carbon. Also, only a small fraction of China’s production of solar photovoltaic generators – 20 megawatts out of 820 megawatts (2%) produced in 2007 – is for China’s domestic market. So capping domestic carbon emissions is not a prerequisite to success in exporting clean-tech products, nor is having a large domestic market for such products.”

Chinese solar has been growing by leaps and bounds. One reason-“China is not enforcing environmental regulations, and many of the new factories are dumping toxic silicon tetrachloride (a byproduct of polysilicon production) directly into nearby farmlands.  For perspective, 4 tons of this toxic byproduct is produced for every ton of polysilicon. Because it is expensive (the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500 versus the Chinese companies making it for $21,000 to $56,000 a ton) and time-consuming to set up systems to recycle the hazardous materials, companies are instead dumping indiscriminately, and people close to these sites are complaining of illness, crop failures, acrid air, and dead fields.” (ilovecarbondioxide.com)

Obama recently went to Florida to announce his plans for modernizing the electric grid, and visited a major new solar energy facility. And where were those solar panels manufactured? The Philippines.

Remarks by Czech President Václav Klaus on Cap-and-Trade

by William Yeatman on November 5, 2009

in Blog

Yesterday the Washington Times hosted a briefing, “Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy,” at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. The event featured four panels, one each for lobbyists, members of think tanks, Members of Congress, and foreign policy experts. This last panel included Czech President Václav Klaus, and his excellent remarks are below:

Václav Klaus, Washington Briefing: Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy, November 4, 2009.

“Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.

We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today’s meeting can’t be an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no consensus – neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.

I left Prague after signing of the Lisbon Treaty and came here only a few minutes ago, which means that I missed most of your conference. I’m sorry for that.

I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the so called Social Summit. At that time, the Summit was attended by then US Vice President Al Gore who – so it seems – will be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, but I don’t plan to go there now. I don’t see any chance to influence the results or to be listened to.

In 1995, there were huge demonstrations there organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings – from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don’t expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences.

My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role of man in it are relatively known. My book with the title “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” has been already published in 12 languages and, two and a half years after its original publication, I don’t have any urgent need to rewrite it.

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas – population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods. [1] Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and – without waiting for its confirmation – started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won’t carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences).

I don’t see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future, and for that reason I am not sufficiently motivated to discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only protest against calling it a “market solution.” It reminds me of the communist planners who similarly talked about “using market instruments” when they finally came to the conclusion that “planning instruments” did not work. Markets can’t be used by anybody.

We should not deceive ourselves. Cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a “market solution.” How much “to cap” is the decision of the government (and the European failure several years ago – when too many carbon permits were issued – is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else that a tax imposed upon citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill “is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world.” [2] How is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What bothers me is that to “trade” the artificial “good” – the permits – means that a new group of rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our expense. Why doesn’t anybody say that the carbon permits have no intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue along these lines.

But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific efforts and spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord Monckton: “the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don’t think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.”

[1] The IPCC doesn’t speak about testing. They prefer to use the term “verification” instead – they do not try to invalidate their models, they seek supporting evidence only.

[2] Interview with Lord Christopher Monkton, EIR, June 12, 2009, p. 47

Notes on Afternoon’s EPW Mark-Up Hearing for Climate Bill

by William Yeatman on November 3, 2009

For background on this afternoon’s Senate Environment and Public Works mark-up hearing on S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power act, read this post on Boxer’s Reckless Pace.

2:34, Hearing begins:

Boxer thanks her Democratic colleagues for attending and for their strong voices in the morning.

Boxer sits before stacks and stacks of pages. She says they are the economic analysis and modeling that she says had been used by EPA’s staff. This is her rebuttal to GOP claims that they don’t have sufficient analysis on the economic impact of the bill.

Boxer brings up her days growing up “in an inner-city.” There, when someone wasn’t right, she had to “call them out.” Presumably, she is “calling out” the GOP by sitting in front of all that paper.

She again expresses her hope that members of the minority will arrive.

Boxer introduces David McIntosh, EPA’s associate administrator for congressional and governmental relations. McIntosh is a political appointee. He worked on Obama’s transition team, which means this is a hearing of partisan Democrats questioning a partisan Democrat.

McIntosh is there to talk about the EPA’s economic analysis of S. 1733. Boxer is having him testify to rebut GOP claims that EPW should not act on the legislation until the EPA has completed comprehensive economic analysis, which would take 5 weeks.

McIntosh claims that economic analysis of H.R. 2454, which EPA has already performed, won’t differ appreciably from analysis of S. 1733. This is based on three years worth of modeling climate legislation. It is “particularly unlikely” that running the “full suite” of S. 1733 would produce any significant difference. He also notes that the EPW committee had much less analysis available to it before it voted on Lieberman-Warner in the summer of 2008.

In light of all this, McIntosh claims that the agency can’t justify the cost (>$135k) and manpower to conduct another run of the economic model.

McIntosh claims that amount of EPA analysis is “unprecedented.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse asks McIntosh to clarify what he said. He ends his questioning by saying that Mr. McIntosh’s testimony sinks the GOP’s arguments for more modeling.

Sen. Jeff Merkley’s line of questioning addresses McIntosh’s point that more modeling is superfluous until the other Senate committees with jurisdiction weigh-in with their input. They both agree that the EPW draft is similar to H.R. 2454, so it’s a waste of money to model the Senate legislation until it actually changes.

Merkley then questions McIntosh about apparent differences between H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 (17% emissions reductions vs. 20% emissions reductions; different percentages of carbon allowances earmarked for deficit reduction; difference offset plans). According to McIntosh, none of these differences would change the model’s output.

Sen. Lautenberg: “Madam Chairman, I think we’re mired down here, but not by serious interests…there has been very little from the other side in terms of what they’d even like to see…it’s hard to find a serious advantage to permitting this delay.”

Sen. Carper questions McIntosh on his personal history. McIntosh was Lieberman’s lead staffer on the Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill that foundered in Senate in 2008. McIntosh gives a history of that bill’s evolution. McIntosh says that the EPW Committee reported on Lieberman-Warner 4 months before EPA provided comprehensive economic analysis. McIntosh blames this on President George W. Bush.

Boxer asks if there was any economic analysis on the energy bill passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. McIntosh says he is unaware of any such analysis. Boxer is miffed. She again questions the GOP’s motives.

Boxer asks McIntosh what parameters were used to model H.R. 2454. He does this. She then says that all these parameters are in S. 1733. She claims that the Senate bill was drafted to mirror the House bill because the EPA had already performed extensive analysis.

McIntosh again says that the amount of analysis on S. 1733 is “unprecedented.”

Boxer thanks McIntosh. She notes that the doors are open, and she wishes that her “Republican friends” would walk through the door. She complains that minority party calls EPA analysis unsatisfactory, but no members showed up to question McIntosh. She is miffed. “It isn’t fair to roundly criticize an analysis, and then not show up when there’s an in depth discussion of that analysis,” she says. This is indicative of “stall tactics,” and “playing politics.” She continued, “They are stalling over something very important…This is a crucial issue. This is about jobs. This is about spending a billion dollars a day on oil…Our kids’ future.”

She says they’re going to reconvene to continue the mark-up.

N.B. The GOP’s response, in the form of a letter from Sen. George Voinovich, is available here. Specifically, the minority party objects to the EPA’s not having modeled these scenarios:

  • International action that lines up with the recent G8 agreement;
  • A scenario that assumes that no international offsets will be available;
  • A scenario that assumes: (1) through 2050, neither nuclear power nor biomass power deploys any more, or any faster, than in the reference case; and (2) no CCS gets built until after 2030;
  • A scenario that assumes both that no international offsets are available and (1) through 2050, neither nuclear power or biomass power deploys any more, or any faster, than in the reference case; and (2) no CCS gets built until after 2030;
  • A scenario that imposes the IPM electricity-sector reductions on ADAGE and the resulting impacts on the overall emissions-allowance market; and
  • A scenario that shows the impact of US policy on global greenhouse gas emissions and concentration levels.

So the majority party says that the EPW Committe already has access to “unprecedented” economic analysis, and the minority party says that this “unprecedented” analysis is unsatisfactory. Given that we are dealing with a trillion-dollar policy, I don’t see the problem with erring on the side of caution. It strikes me that thorough analysis should be welcome by the Senate, which is supposed to be a deliberative body.

Boxer’s Reckless Pace

by William Yeatman on November 3, 2009

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) has set a frantic pace for major energy-rationing legislation so she can meet a deadline imposed by the United Nations.

Boxer wants to have climate legislation out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which she chairs, before the 15th Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change this December in Copenhagen, where the United Nations hopes to produce a successor climate treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol.

To meet this December deadline, Senator Boxer has pushed an absurdly fast timetable for the usually-deliberative Senate. Ten days ago, she introduced a draft of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Last week she conducted three days of marathon hearings on the bill. Today, Boxer began a “mark-up” of the legislation-the first step towards moving the bill out of the EPW Committee.

Of course, most of the deal-making will be made behind the scenes. Boxer’s strategy is to cobble together support for her bill by using the proceeds of the cap-and-trade scheme to buy off Senators otherwise inclined to vote against a massive energy tax. That’s how Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives passed energy rationing legislation.

Republicans on the EPW Committee are so dissatisfied with Boxer’s recklessness that they’ve threatened to boycott the mark-up, and thereby deprive Senator Boxer of a quorum. The Republicans are asking for a full economic analysis of the bill by the EPA, which would take at least five weeks.

But Boxer used an unusual interpretation of Senate rules to press forward with the mark-up without participation from the minority party. The proceedings began this morning. No Republicans attended, although Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) introduced a statement decrying Boxer’s blitzkrieg strategy.

Last night, Boxer seemed to hand the Republicans an olive branch, by extending the deadline for offering amendments from 9 am to 5 pm. She also arranged for an EPA official to brief the Committee on their economic analysis.

This morning, however, Boxer was far from conciliatory. She indicated that she would hold mark-up hearings tomorrow, with or without a presence from the minority party. At one point, she told the room “There’s no room for bipartisanship on this issue…This isn’t us. This is them.”

While it’s still unclear whether or not Boxer has the political courage to throw Senate decorum out the window in order to meet a deadline imposed by the United Nations, her comments today indicate that she intent on ramming this bill through the EPW Committee, with or without input from the Republicans.

Video of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s “Deconstructing Global Warming”

by William Yeatman on November 3, 2009

On Monday, October 26th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Video of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming”

Power point Presentation

Cooler Heads Digest 30 October 2009

by William Yeatman on October 30, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

Sins of Emission
Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2009

Don’t let the State Choose Your TV
William Yeatman, Orange County Register, 29 October 2009

Senate Republicans Weigh a Boycott of Climate Bill
Richard Cowen, Reuters, 29 October 2009

Texas: Field of Dreams for Wind
Drew Thornley, Planet Gore, 29 October 2009

Rush-Defying Thought Experiments
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 28 October 2009

Poll: Cap-and-Trade Losing Support
Keith Johnson, WSJ Environmental Capital, 28 October 2009

The Cap-and-Trade Folly
Senator David Vitter, Heritage Foundry blog, 28 October 2009

Unscientific America
William Tucker, American Spectator, 28 October 2009

UN Signals Delay on a Climate Treaty
Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press, 27 October 2009

Kerry-Boxer: Its Bite Is Worse than Its Bark
Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 27 October 2009

News You Can Use

Cap-and-Trade: $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax

Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) last week released a report that estimates how much additional pain at the pump the Waxman-Markey would inflict on U.S. consumers. The title says it all: Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax.

Inside the Beltway

Boxer’s Reckless Pace

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) is imposing a frantic pace on major energy-rationing legislation so she can meet a deadline set by the United Nations.

Boxer wants to have climate legislation out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which she chairs, before the 15th Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the UN hopes to produce a successor climate treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol. To meet this December deadline, Senator Boxer has pushed an absurdly fast timetable for the usually-deliberative Senate. Last weekend, she introduced her “chairman’s mark” of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. This week she conducted three days of marathon hearings. And she wants to begin a mark-up next Tuesday.

Of course, most of the deal-making will be made behind the scenes. Boxer’s strategy is to cobble together support for her bill by using the proceeds of the cap-and-trade scheme to buy off Senators otherwise inclined to vote against a massive energy tax. That’s how Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives passed energy rationing legislation.

Some Senators are wary of Boxer’s strategy. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), chair of the powerful Agriculture Committee has expressed concerns relating to the pace of cap-and-trade legislation. Republicans on the EPW Committee are so dissatisfied with Boxer’s recklessness that they’ve threatened to boycott the mark-ups next week, and thereby deprive Senator Boxer of a quorum for the mark ups.

Highlights from the Marathon Hearings

For three days this week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard from over fifty witnesses on the Kerry-Boxer energy rationing bill, S. 1733, the Clean Energy and American Power Act. The written testimony and the televised hearings can be found here. Here are the highlights and lowlights:

Day 1
The highlight of the first day was Senator John Kerry’s (D-Massachusetts) testimony. Kerry co-wrote the legislation that the EPW Committee is debating, but his remarks indicate that he hasn’t yet read it. If he has, then he evidently doesn’t understand it. During his 30 minute testimony, Senator Kerry claimed that a cap-and-trade “is not a government-run program,” which is ridiculous. Cap-and-trade is a government-run scheme to ration energy. Perhaps his ignorance isn’t surprising. A month ago he told reporters, “I don’t know what cap-and-trade means,” despite having just released major cap-and-trade legislation that he authored.

Day 2
A highlight of day two was AEI’s Ken Green, who testified on the many misguided government policies that give Americans the incentive to become less resilient to global warming, should the planet ever start to warm (global temperatures haven’t increased in a decade, despite steadily increasing global greenhouse gas emissions, the supposed “cause” of climate change). Also on day two, Retired Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, now with the Heritage Foundation, gave excellent testimony on the national security aspects of climate change mitigation policy.

Day 3
On day three, CEI’s Iain Murray testified on the international aspects of climate policy. Mr. Murray summarizes his panel here, here, and here. His testimony is available here.

Dems Ban the Evidence in “Astroturfing” Investigation

On Thursday the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held an investigative hearing on so-called “astroturfing”-deceptive grass roots campaign, created by lobbyists, and designed to fool Members of Congress into believing that there is popular support for or against a bill. The Republicans chose CEI’s Chris Horner to testify, which is a great choice, as Horner is the author of a book on dirty tactics (including astro-turfing) used by special interests to manufacture global warming alarmism. But the Democrats on the panel didn’t want to hear that, because the case for energy rationing legislation depends on global warming alarmism. So they objected to Horner as a witness. Click here for Horner’s thoughts on the panel and a copy of his forbidden testimony.

Across the States

Mainstream Media Misreports California’s Energy “Success”

Recently, both The Atlantic and Time have run lengthy stories arguing that California energy policy should be regarded as a success. As “proof,” both articles note that per-capita electricity consumption in California is 40% below the national average and attribute this “success” to energy policy. But there are many reasons for California’s relatively low per capita electricity consumption, including the state’s mild climate, urbanization and high household density. In fact, energy conservation policies account for a paltry 23 percent of the difference in electricity consumption between the average Californian and the average American, according to a recent report from Stanford University. And this percentage is largely explained by the fact that California has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, which depresses demand.

Only in California…

Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on a ballot initiative that would force all California utilities to generate at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025. According the Public Utilities Commission, a 33% by 2020 standard would increase electricity rates 20%.

Around the World

European Union member states today agreed to contribute a “fair share” to an international effort to pay for clean energy technologies as part of a successor treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol. But EU leaders failed to enumerate specific commitments among member states, which suggests that this “conditional agreement” is a face-saving gesture in the wake of media reports last week that negotiations would end in recriminations over burden sharing.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary check out the Coalition’s website, www.globalwarming.org.

Kerry Is Very Confused on Cap-and-Trade

by William Yeatman on October 28, 2009

When Senator John Kerry released a draft of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, he told reporters, “I don’t know what cap-and-trade means.” That was a pretty strange thing to say, seeing as how he wrote the legislation, and its centerpiece is a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme.

In the month since, it doesn’t seem as though Kerry bothered to learn anything about the bill he supposedly wrote. Yesterday he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that a cap-and-trade “is not a government-run program.” Huh?!?

Perhaps the truth is too damaging politically for the Senator to countenance, so I’ll go ahead and define a cap-and-trade for you: It’s an government-run program designed to raise the price of hydrocarbon fuels that account for 85% of America’s energy. That is, it’s an energy tax.

“Deconstructing Global Warming” Presentation by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen

by William Yeatman on October 27, 2009

in Blog

Yesterday the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Video of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming,” will be available shortly, but his power point presentation is online now.

Cooler Heads Digest 23 October 2009

by William Yeatman on October 23, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

Kerry’s Climate Strategy: An Ugly Repeat
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott, American Spectator, 23 October 2009

The Chicago Way
Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2009

WWF Extends Dire Consequences Deadline
Paul Chesser, GlobalWarming.org, 23 October 2009

The View from Vanuatu on Climate Change
Bjorn Lomborg, Wall Street Journal, 23 October 2009

Apple, Nike, and the U.S. Chamber
Myron Ebell, Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2009

Wellesley Walkout
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 22 October 2009

Tiny Bat Pits Green against Green
Maria Glod, Washington Post, 22 October 2009

Data Deflates Threat Multiplier Hype
Marlo Lewis, OpenMarket.org, 21 October 2009

China, India Form a Negotiating Bloc for Copenhagen
BBC News, 21 October 2009

Time for Inaction on Cap-and-Trade
Pete DuPont, Wall Street Journal, 20 October 2009

Understanding the Copenhagen Climate Conference: The Fix Is in
Roger Pielke Jr., Energy Tribune, 20 October 2009

Cap-and-Trade Is a Costly Non-Solution
Sen. James Inhofe, Roll Call, 19 October 2009

Setting ‘The Economist’ Straight on Climate Change
Indur Goklany, MasterResource.org, 17 October 2009

Not Evil Just Wrong: A Cinematic Tea Party
Alicia Cohn, Human Events, 16 October 2009

News You Can Use

Pew Poll: People Are Paying Attention

Only 36% of Americans believe in man-made global warming, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center. That’s down from 47% a year ago.

Here’s Why:

A new Public Strategies/Politico poll asks what is the “most important issue in deciding [your] vote if the congressional election were held today?”, and found that 45% of respondents said that the economy was the most important issue, while only 4% said global warming. Of those polled, 62 percent agreed that “economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.”

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Senate Hearings on Kerry-Boxer

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding three full days of hearings next week on the Kerry-Boxer energy-rationing bill-S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.  My CEI colleague, Iain Murray, is one of 53 witnesses (by my count) who have been invited to testify.  You can find the whole witness list on the EPW committee’s web site.  It appears to be Chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) intention to mark up the bill and pass it out of committee some time in November between election day, 3rd November, and the Thanksgiving recess.

That is probably as far as the bill will get this year.  Senator John Kerry is working hard to make deals for votes, but the latest count shows that he is still far short of the sixty votes needed to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on the Senate floor.  According to Environment and Energy Daily, the number of undecided votes has increased (subscription required).  I think this is because two related realities are sinking in.  Energy rationing is going to be very expensive for consumers.  And voters (who are also consumers) dislike cap-and-trade more the more they find out about what it is.  Mother Jones Magazine explains the declining poll numbers as due to the fact that “climate change skeptics are dominating in the language battle.”  Which is another way of saying that people are finding out that cap-and-trade is a tax on them.  That’s why Senator Kerry said, “I don’t know what cap-and-trade means,” and is now calling it “pollution reduction and investment” in his bill.  Another factor that will probably keep the bill off the floor this fall even if Kerry rounds up the votes is that the Senate calendar is still jammed with appropriations conference reports and the health care legislation.

The Gore Effect?

The Washington Post had a small item at the bottom of page B5 in its 17th October issue: “Something happened in Washington that had not occurred in 138 years of weather history: for the first time since the National Weather Service began compiling daily data here, the high temperature for Oct. 16 was below 50 degrees.”  In fact, the high was 45 degrees.  That’s 23 degrees below normal and 37 below last year’s high, according to the Post.

It may only be a co-incidence, but I have it on good authority that former Vice President Al Gore was inside the Beltway last Friday, 16th October, to do a fundraiser for the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia, Creigh Deeds, at a private house in McLean, Va.  But as I say, that could just be a co-incidence.

More Hijinks

A left-wing prankster group, the Yes Men, held a press conference at the National Press Club Monday morning to announce that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce had changed its position and was now supporting the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer energy-rationing legislation.  They represented themselves as officials of the Chamber.  Several news outlets fell for it and rushed out with e-mails and web postings.  I hope they feel very foolish.  As it happens, the House Select Committee on Energy and Independence is holding a hearing next week on another recent hoax-forged letters of opposition to Waxman-Markey sent to several Members of Congress purportedly from local minority groups.

Across the States

Marlo Lewis

California Court Dismisses Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuit

In another chapter in the continuing saga of whether energy companies can be sued under tort law for emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs), a federal district court in California yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Kivalina Alaska Native Village and others against a large number of energy companies.  The Court became the fourth federal district court to find, in essence, that there is no common law nuisance tort of global warming.  One of those district court decisions, however, was recently reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Connecticut v. AEP case, which we reported on extensively in a previous client alert available at the link provided below….read the rest.

EPA Assaults Appalachian Coal (Again)

The Environmental Protection Agency this week took the unprecedented step of revoking a Clean Water Act permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to a surface coal mining project in West Virginia. It’s the first time in the 37-year history of the CWA that the EPA has revoked a permit that had been issued. This comes on the heels of the EPA’s decision last month to review pending permits for surface mining in Appalachia. All told, the EPA’s anti-mining actions threaten to shut down surface coal production in Appalachia, which sustains 80,000 jobs. The EPA’s justification is outrageous-it is acting against the coal industry to protect mayfly populations, a bug that lives for a day. It has been alleged by EPA that populations of some species of mayflies are declining as a result of surface mining projects. None of these species is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary check out the Coalition’s website, www.globalwarming.org.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →