Politics

Geoff Lawrence and Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Center for Climate Strategies, the advocacy-disguised-as-objective-consultancy group advising more than a dozen state climate commissions on greenhouse gas emission policies, wants to expand its funding. CCS is the public policy arm of Pennsylvania-based Enterprising Environmental Solutions, a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.

To refresh your memories, CCS lobbies from state to state encouraging governments (mostly executive branch) to establish study commissions for the purpose of developing policy options related to climate change. These policy options include massive new taxes, regulations, and subsidies and nearly all of them are designed to restrict individual freedom.

CCS is typically able to persuade state governments to establish a study commission because it volunteers to serve as the "technical consultant" for any such commission at minimal (if any) cost to the state. CCS develops the policy options, performs its own analyses (which always support CCS's forgone conclusions about science and economics), and controls the entire process. Once CCS is able to establish themselves as a state's technical consultant, they essentially have a stranglehold on that state's public policy.

Because CCS uses its low-cost or cost-free appeal to seduce state governments into allowing CCS to control climate change policy, the magnitude of its funding is a big deal. If CCS is able to expand its funding base (it is currently supported by left-wing foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund) it will be able to expand its operations and have tighter control over state policymaking.

CCS is now looking to hire a new development officer in order to expand its influence. From the job posting:

CCS seeks a talented fundraising and program development professional to lead its efforts to fund the expansion of its programs and increased demand for its current range of services. The position reports directly to the CCS President and CEO, and works regularly with the EESI Executive Director, EESI Senior Accountant and a number of CCS consultants serving as program coordinators. The development officer participates in weekly internal conference calls, external conference calls with current and prospective funders, occasional in-person meetings at administrative offices or field locations of CCS and EESI, and potentially in annual or biannual donor briefings, involving occasional travel. A Washington, DC metro location is preferred.

CCS, as a policy center, is supported primarily by private foundation grants and state government contracts. It is not a membership-based organization and has no member services program. Primary goals for CCS development include: Retention of CCS core group of donors; expansion and diversification of the CCS core group of private foundation donors; expansion of private individual donor support; pursuit of RFP’s issued by state, regional and local government organizations; pursuit of RFP’s and grant programs of the federal government.

We suspect that a couple of issues are driving this. First, because the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has picked up all or most of the full tab for the most recently created climate commissions where CCS has been hired (Arkansas, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa), it may be that they are close to running afoul of the "minimum public support threshold" that nonprofits must reach, and therefore need to diversify. The other issue is that they are realizing some success, they see regional initiatives being developed, and they want to stay in the game.

Also it is interesting that CCS says "it is not a membership-based organization" and "has no member services program." That is because, as EESI's Form 990 tax returns explain, the (parent nonprofit advocacy group) Pennsylvania Environmental Council "is the only member of EESI" and "controls" EESI.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

That the presidential race inhabits every nook and cranny of the mind of cable television news hosts became ridiculously clear in a Wolf Blitzer interview with Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly:

Blitzer: You know you have — you and ExxonMobil, the Big Oil companies –have a huge public relations problem. In all the recent polls, when the American public is asked, who do you blame for these huge gas prices at the pump, they — more than any other single source — they blame Big Oil. They blame you. What's going on?…

Blitzer: There's other blame, but more than any other single source, they blame Big Oil….

Blitzer: Because you have had record profits, right?

O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits.

Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before….

Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president?…

Blitzer: So, I guess, given the stark difference when it comes to Big Oil between Obama and McCain — let me rephrase the question — do you want McCain to be elected?

Talk about obsessed — and can someone please tell me how that's "rephrasing the question?!"

If you read the whole interview, CNN's iReporters show themselves to be better questioners than the Blitzer.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

As Drudge notes today, $4-per-gallon-(plus!) gasoline has put environmentalists on their heels (it's the economy, stupids!), with arguments from their apologists getting ever sillier:

John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, opposed new offshore drilling in his 2000 presidential campaign. He said Tuesday that he now supported lifting the long-standing ban.

"I believe it is time for federal government to lift these restrictions and put our own reserves to use," the Arizona senator said in a Houston speech on energy security…. 

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) decried McCain's stance. "He ought to know he'd ruin Florida's $65-billion tourism economy by allowing oil rigs off the coast."

Dear Senator: Do the math. If folks can't afford the fuel (airline tickets, etc.) it takes to travel to the Sunshine State or other like places, you aren't going to have a "tourism economy."

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Washington Post today reports there is great movement in Congress to set aside thousands upon thousands of more U.S. acreage as (mostly) untouchable wilderness area, as environmentalists gain ever greater influence in the nation's capitol. Meanwhile that kind of effort, as the Washington Times notes, is undermining the enviros' own goals (mandates, that is) of expanded use of renewable fuels to generate electricity. They want solar and wind energy tapped, which generally is found in the largest amounts in remote areas (the desert sun, and mountain and coastal breezes, respectively), yet oppose connecting those sources to the users:

Build one of the world's largest solar-power operations in the Southern California desert and surround it with plants that run on wind and underground heat.

Yet San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) and its potential partners face fierce opposition because the plan also calls for a 150-mile, high-voltage transmission line that would cut through pristine parkland to reach the nation's eighth-largest city.

The showdown over how to get renewable energy to consumers will likely play out elsewhere around the country as well, as state regulators require electric utilities to rely less on coal and natural gas to fire their plants – the biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S.

Is there any element of environmentalism where these activists can apply their "solutions" while not showing themselves to be foolish, hypocritical, or both?

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Promotion of state-level greenhouse gas reduction policies has now advanced into viral video, with a slick new piece that crows about the work of the enviro-advocacy Center for Climate Strategies. My analysis of the short film will follow in a subsequent post, but the producer, Sea Studios Foundation, spared no effort in getting CCS client-governors to appear in the 15-minute feature, which includes Martin O’Malley (Maryland), Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota, pictured), Janet Napolitano (Arizona), and Charlie Crist (Florida).

Who is Sea Studios Foundation? They are the nonprofit counterpart to Sea Studios Inc., which is 2/3-owned by television producer Mark Shelley, according to the foundation’s IRS 990 tax returns. The foundation and Sea Studios Inc. share office space in Monterey, Calif. and have a “resource sharing agreement,” under which the foundation paid the company $86,916 in 2006. In 2006 Shelley was paid $177,446 (which includes health benefits) by his for-profit company, of which $163,098 was reimbursed by the foundation. The 990 explains that Shelley “spent the majority of his time producing Foundation projects and fundraising for future Foundation projects.” An interview with the Grist Web site shows that Shelley feels real good about himself:

Q. Which stereotype about environmentalists most fits you?

A. My Toyota Prius and the hypocrisy that I fly my own small plane. Environmentalists are rarely perfect. They are just usually more so than others.

According to the foundation’s Web site, the organization believes the world faces “unprecedented global environmental threats,” and therefore “is dedicated to raising environmental literacy and motivating action in the US and internationally to address urgent threats to our planet’s health.” That entails the global warming catastrophism outcry and the praise of anyone who does something to stop it. Sea Studios’ most recognized work are collaborations with public television stations in New York (WNET), on “Nature,” and in Boston (WGBH), on “National Geographic’s Strange Days on Planet Earth.” Sea Studios has also obtained millions of dollars in federal grants from the National Science Foundation for various projects.

Sea Studios’ new Web video, which is titled “Ahead of the Curve: States Lead on Climate Change” (a sequel to an earlier production, “Ahead of the Curve: Business Leads on Climate Change”), not surprisingly was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The enviro-grantmaker, led by Neva-Says-Die-Carbon Rockefeller, ponied up at least $90,000 for the project, after providing $75,000 three years ago for an earlier Sea Studios film “to support a convincing case that emissions reductions are achievable, cost-effective, and beneficial to the bottom line.”

The Rockefellers’ involvement in yet another CCS prop-up makes it clear that this state-level effort is as much their own as it is CCS’s, cleverly cloaked as an objective, non-advocacy process. After all, RBF has written an article praising CCS, then sent them to state enviro-crats as promotional materials for their work. RBF also guarantees money to CCS for new states when the resources can’t be raised elsewhere. And now, it’s dazzling videos – a truly Rockefellifying extravaganza! Can’t wait for the theme park.

Update 11:35 a.m.: Apparently an auditor for the National Science Foundation thought the relationship between Sea Studios Foundation and Sea Studios Inc. was a little too slushy (PDF) a few years ago.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Exxon Mobil has turned off the oxygen…help…skeptics-may-not-survive…

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Every Chesser deserves his five minutes of glory in the blogosphere, so here's Uncle Wes with his celebration of Earth Day, Al Gore, and windmills in his best Dave Barry-esque form.

Reporting from his beat in Fredericksburg, Va. 

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

A new clearing house Web site on global warming skepticism is up, called The Chilling Effect, and along with its sister site Gored Earth, says it will produce a new political cartoon that addresses the issue every week. The first two look very promising.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I just spent two days in Detroit and Lansing talking about the fairly new Michigan Climate Action Council, where I was hosted by the free-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy. As usual the local mainstream media showed little interest, but I did get some coverage by the state's (subscription only) political news service, Gongwer ("Group Charges Climate Panel Rigged"):

Michigan, and other states, have hired the Center for Climate Strategies to assist state climate councils in determining how best the state can respond to global warming issues. But what they are getting is a pre-packaged set of recommendations that have no proof of effectiveness, Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch told those gathered Tuesday for a luncheon hosted by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

State officials said the Michigan council is developing its own plan based on Michigan findings and needs, not being served a pre-determined set of recommendations.

Compare that to what the MCAC process memo — basically the ground rules — say about the commission's procedures and sources of recommendations:

The MCAC process will follow the format of CCS policy development processes used successfully in a number current and completed state-level climate action planning initiatives. To facilitate learning, collaboration, and task completion by the MCAC members, CCS will provide a series of decision templates for each step in the process, including: a catalog of state actions with ranking criteria, a balloting form for identification of initial priorities for analysis, a draft policy option template for the drafting and analysis of individual recommendations, a quantification principles and guidelines document for each TWG, and a final report format. CCS will also provide meeting materials for each MCAC meeting and TWG teleconference call, including: a PowerPoint presentation of the discussion items, an agenda and notice of the meeting, a draft summary of the previous meeting for review and approval, and additional handouts as needed. Materials will be provided by CCS in advance through website posting and email notice with a goal of seven-days advance notice. CCS will provide and manage a project website (www.miclimatechange.us) in close coordination with the DEQ. All website materials are reviewed by the DEQ prior to posting. Examples of CCS project websites can be found at www.climatestrategies.us.

But other than that, Michigan is unique! More from the Gongwer report:

Mr. Chesser argued the state climate councils, such as the Michigan Climate Action Council, should be open to discussions of the science supporting global warming findings as well as policies to address it. But he said CCS-run councils do not allow such discussions.

DEQ spokesperson Robert McCann admitted the Climate Action Council was not discussing the reality or causes of global warming. "They're starting point is what science is telling us," he said. "There's really is no scientific debate at this point."

That's because the alarmists are afraid to debate!

But Mr. McCann said the council is not being led to pre-determined recommendations that CCS may have offered in other states. "That's certainly not how it's working here," he said. "They are really taking an open book look at what's happening here."

And CCS is the author.

Mr. McCann argued the recommendations expected from the Climate Action Council will not only help to improve the state's environment, but will also help to improve its economy by creating incentives for alternative energy and energy efficiency. "They'll help us protect the environment and carve a path to those next alternative energy jobs," he said.

There they go again…

Some locals are not thrilled.