Politics

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was a great hit. For the sheer audacity of daring to discuss the questions that IPCC omitted, a ton of reporters could not stay away. The problem with reporters is that they pick the easy story and so far the only story that got out was the political stories.

I found some amazing science stories at the conference, but they take time to develop and sell. The science news cycle is slower than most if it is done properly. The fast science news cycle is faster, but the significance of a story takes experience and effort to follow, it used to frustrate the hell out of me when I started writing about science.

The Columbia Journalism Review published a story headlined the The Skeptics Ball, -Heartland Institute conference tests news judgment. Just by the headline they have dismissed the conference was not labeled Heartland Institute Conference. The Heartland Institute actually has one of those, but this one was the 2008 International Climate Change Conference.

As John Stossel pointed out in his speech on Tuesday, he was impressed by Joe Bast's optimism about the coverage. Bast was probably bolstered by the fact that major media internationally actually carried stories from the conference, it is more than he is used to for his courageous, but counterintuitive approaches to public policy. Mainstream media has been killing people who questions the reasoning and policy approaches to the global warming scare with silence for months and years.

I posted this comment on the Columbia Journalism Review's comment section to Curtis Brainard's story the Sceptics Ball. I have to admit, I did expect the gospel meeting, but I got a kick ass science conference, the reporters that wrote about the gospel meeting was sloppy, lazy, or in non-attendance. National and international reporting involves a lot of assumptions, and as my professors beat into me the hard way in the Missouri School of Journalism (one of the best, in case you are not part of the media mafia), assumption makes an ASS out of U and ME.

The reports that got out so far was the easy, short deadline political reports, but the science reports from this conference will take time to develop. I hope to put Roy Spencer to shame so we can make him a center fold in the magazines that science geeks reads.

"I am not sure if Curtis Brainard actually went to the conference, but I have read a lot of press accounts and I am not sure that some of those guys went to the same conference as I did. There was in fact a slough of reporters there, including a three-person team from BBC who did not find the stories they expected, but they found a whole lot of others according to my conversations with them.

The fact that few stories have surfaced yet is an aspect of science reporting, because there were quite a few interesting science stories there. Some of those stories take a bit longer to develop, because they are complicated stories.

I have participated on a ton of science conferences and a ton of political conferences over the years. I thought I was heading to another political gospel meeting when I got to New York on Sunday, but I soon figured out that I had underestimated this conference. This was a science conference like any of the top ones I have attended. Many of the presentations were breaking science stories, and I know that I have freelance material for several months following this trip.

Roy Spencer's presentation on his upcoming paper in the Journal of Climatology where he identifies a serious omission in most pre-eminent climate models are big news for science journalists, but it is probably too complicated for non-beat journalists to handle. Not because those reporters are lacking in any other department than in the time department.

The stories that have come out so far are the stories that were easy to write. I am willing to bet you that some of these reporters never left the newsroom to write their stories. They stuck with the pre-dominant frame and mostly used sources that did not attend the conference. If you are a science geek reporter and you had a chance to go, but did not, you missed out. However, as any conference we get the stories we want to get out of them and that is a part of the problem. This is our problem as reporters, not the problem of the researchers that attended this conference, but it is their reputations we are dragging through the mud."

James Lovelock is the originator of the Gaia myth and convinced that the world is coming to an end, soon, because global warming is going to get us.

OK, so we have heard that one before. However, what I found interesting about the story is that Lovelock thinks carbon offsetting is a joke and "green ethical living" is a sham.

Although I am sure that the most prominent greens know this, they will not tell you if their life depended on it, so Lovelock's honesty is refreshing even though his reasons for thinking so is logically invalid.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Charlotte Observer reports today that Duke Energy spent more money last year on lobbying efforts than it ever has at the federal level, mostly to address global warming legislation:

Several carbon dioxide bills that could cost utilities are pending. And Duke and other power companies helped stall measures last year that would force utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as the sun and wind. That electricity is more expensive to produce.

Extra costs from regulation are generally passed on to ratepayers, which utilities say is bad for business….

Duke, the nation's third largest consumer of coal, reported lobbying lawmakers on 31 separate bills last year, 19 of which deal with global warming and ways to battle it.

However, it appears the environmentalists may feel they are losing traction on climate change and may be changing their tactics. Back to mercury, folks!

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Pat Michaels today at American Spectator Online explains how legislators in Kansas thwarted the imposition of a hidden CO2 tax upon utilities, but that the attempt is likely to be replicated in many other states:

A CO2 tax will largely be levied on utilities that exceed modest limits on their carbon dioxide effluent, so consumers won't "see" it — except in their electric bills. They'll send in their monthly checks, quite unaware that the new tax revenues are likely to be shoved into a slush fund for solar energy, windmills, biodiesel, ethanol and other green gadgetry boondoggles.

As Pat goes on to write, such measures will do nothing to affect the climate.

A front page story in the Washington Times by Patrice Hill reports that Americans are currently most worried by high energy prices.  They should be.  So far, the 110th Congress has passed and President Bush has signed an anti-energy bill, H. R. 6,  that will raise gasoline, auto, food, and appliance prices.  And the House and Senate are actively considering other bills that will increase gas and electricity prices a whole lot more (see, for example, S. 2191).  

But now two members of the House have introduced a bill that would increase domestic oil and natural gas production and thereby lower prices over the long term.  The American-Made Energy Act, H. R. 5890, was introduced by Representatives Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.) on February 14.  According to Rep. Nunes’s press release, the bill will open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas to oil and gas exploration.  The tens and hundreds of billions of dollars from leasing and royalty payments would be used to fund a wide range of tax credits, loan guarantees, and grants to encourage renewable vehicle fuels, plug-in hybrid vehicles, coal to liquids, and electricity production from renewable sources and nuclear power plants. 

The 109th Congress failed narrowly to pass bills that would have opened the OCS and ANWR.  The 110th Congress is much more hostile to increasing domestic energy production, so the Nunes-Ross bill isn’t going to become law anytime soon.  But it is a most hopeful sign, nonetheless.  It takes persistence to enact controversial legislation.  By introducing H. R. 5890, Representatives Nunes and Ross have signaled that they are in this fight for the long haul.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I'm in Milwaukee, where I spent time with a lot of climate atheists at Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin's Defending the American Dream Summit yesterday. I presented on a panel with AFP's Phil Kerpen (based in DC) and Wisconsin State Rep. Jim Ott, who was a television meteorologist here for about 30 years.

As the snow blew outside causing near-whiteout conditions, I put up a quote on PowerPoint from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle in which he said, "Failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could raise Wisconsin temperatures…," which prompted an immediate cheer. Right now it is 5 degrees below zero outside with a wind chill of -38.

Pretty soon I will try to go out and do my emitting part as I have to drive to the airport. I'm not looking forward to filling up the gas tank.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Here in Minnesota, where I’ve been the last two days talking about the state’s Climate Change Advisory Group and explaining what can be expected in their recommendations, the Center for Climate Strategies has not been able to push all their greenhouse gas-reduction ideas as robustly as they have been able to in most other states. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the one who created the commission and brought CCS on board, and politically has to be sensitive to the elements of his support who actually care about the state’s people and their economy.

That’s not to say the MCCAG’s report itself won’t be filled with the usual CCS pap, like cap-and-trade, smart growth-based land use regulations, and “climate-friendly transportation pricing.” It’s just that Pawlenty already is showing he is not willing to go as far as CCS and the commission would like. For example, the MCCAG approved a plan to reduce speed limits on highways in the state back down to 55 mph. That was too much for the governor, and he left it out of his preliminary recommendations – which were supposed to largely reflect the will of the MCCAG – that he released on Friday. That report is already being criticized by lefty environmentalists for not being strong enough, which they are right about if they hoped Pawlenty would just rubberstamp and release the findings of the MCCAG.

Also worthy of note, demonstrating that CCS and environmentalists aren't getting everything they want: one of the MCCAG's recommendations is to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power facilities. That is a first (at least as far as I've seen) for any of these state commissions. And you can tell in the language (written by CCS) explaining the recommendations for the MCCAG that they are less than enthusiastic about the idea. Nevertheless, it got through.

So, there are two separate tracks to follow in Minnesota as they prepare to formally release their proposals in the coming weeks or months. First is Pawlenty: how much of the energy cost-raising and property rights-limiting ideas from MCCAG will he embrace as his own, and implement (to the degree he is able) through executive orders? Second is MCCAG: How much will the Democrat-dominated legislature take their recommendations and try to make them law? 

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Part of my work with Climate Strategies Watch is to inquire with various states about the status of their processes on global warming policy and to try and determine the nature of their relationship – if any – with the Center for Climate Strategies, an environmental advocacy group disguised as an objective management consultant.

The state of Idaho so far is one that has resisted hiring CCS and has yet to start a climate change commission of its own. But that doesn’t mean CCS has not tried to get its foot in the door, as revealed in an email exchange between executive director Tom Peterson and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality head Toni Hardesty. The excited memo sent by Peterson to Hardesty requires a bit of explanation, though:

Memo: “Toni, we want to congratulate you on the recent Executive Order by Governor (Butch) Otter calling for the development of an Idaho Climate Action Plan and related policies and assessments.”

Translation: “Yes, we love executive orders because it allows CCS to get its foot in the state’s door through its environmental bureaucracy, instead of having to make a case for action based upon valid science and real economics with a bunch of elected legislators.”

Memo: “We would be happy to support you with implementation of these actions through our CCS team. We may also be able to provide significant cost share through our existing base of donors given the importance of Idaho to regional and national management of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Translation: “Please hire us – please? We need to dupe more and more states into getting us to run their climate commissions so our Big Socialist advocacy grant makers will continue to fund us, and I can continue to justify my six-figure salary.”

Memo: “We would be happy to visit you, Governor Otter, and other key parties in Idaho to discuss this approach personally if it would be helpful. We also can provide you a detailed work plan and description of a (sic) Idaho Climate Action Planning process on short turnaround….”

Translation: “We have done this so many times we could do it in our sleep. Don’t sweat it, we know what we’re doing. Just close your eyes and leave the driving to us…."

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Today the Associated Press examines how environmental activists are engaged in an unprecedented push to prevent utilities from building new coal-fired power plants, because of the threat from global warming:

The offensive against coal is emerging as a pivotal front in the global warming debate as environmental groups file lawsuits and administrative appeals against the companies and put lobbying pressure on federal and state regulators….

"Our goal is to oppose these projects at each and every stage, from zoning and air and water permits, to their mining permits and new coal railroads," said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club lawyer who directs the group's national coal campaign. "They know they don't have an answer to global warming, so they're fighting for their life."

Undoubtedly removing such "railroads" and trying to replace them with inefficient and insufficient sources of generation, when demand for power will only increase, will lead to a train wreck:

Industry representatives say the environmentalists' actions threaten to undermine the country's fragile power grid, setting the stage for high-priced electricity and uncontrollable blackouts.

"These projects won't be denied, but they can be delayed by those who oppose any new energy projects," said Vic Svec, vice president of the mining and power company Peabody Energy….

Environmental groups cite 59 canceled, delayed or blocked plants as evidence that they are turning back the "coal rush." That stacks up against 22 new plants under construction in 14 states — the most in two decades.

And they're not stopping there:

Nilles said the Sierra Club spent about $1 million on such efforts in 2007 and hopes to ratchet that figure up to $10 million this year.