2009

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.

June has arrived and so has the nation’s official hurricane season. The New York Times called attention, last week, to the political battles associated with hurricanes and the increasing cost of homeowners insurance. Daniel Sutter, professor of economics at the University of Texas Pan American, published a timely paper with CEI yesterday that examines the relationship between climate change, government regulation of homeowners insurance, and property damage caused by hurricanes. Sutter’s important findings show that the increasing cost of homeowners insurance, and increasing costs of property damage caused by tropical storms, has more to do with the unintended consequences of government policy than with global warming:

“Existing public policies—including insurance regulation, government-subsidized flood insurance, improper mitigation, and faulty building code enforcement—contribute to unnecessarily risky and inefficient development along coastal areas by shifting the cost of hurricane damage ultimately onto third parties—mainly taxpayers. Poor policies lead to excessive vulnerability to hurricanes and would exacerbate the cost of any increase in storm activity, whether due to climate change or any other factor.”

Sutter’s paper is especially noteworthy right now as Congress debates whether to bailout beach house owners at U.S. taxpayer expense.

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.

A recent report by New York University school of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity suggests as much. See my commentary on Masterresource.Org.

As if using the EPA to browbeat and frighten corporate America and its investors isn’t enough, environmentalist thugs now want other government regulators to get into the act, even though they have no authority to do so:

The groups that released the studies called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to respond to investor requests for guidance on climate-related disclosures for companies to put in securities filings. The SEC did not immediately respond (why should they?) to questions about the studies.

“As the nation responds to the challenges of global warming, investors have a right to know which businesses are forging innovative solutions for the 21st century and which are lagging behind,” Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said in a release.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tracks emissions of carbon dioxide from industry, but investors say they want to know more about corporate strategies to reduce pollution from other planet-warming gasses as well as carbon dioxide.

“I want to tell you what’s going to happen from this point forward in my opinion. First of all, the House will pass anything. Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass anything. Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse [than the proposed bill] and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there….

“The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem….

“While the House will pass the bill … in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it. You guys – it’s just not going to happen. Now we have a history of what’s happened in the Senate. We had the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Remember that’s where we passed by a 94-1, I think it was, saying we don’t want to ratify any treaty – the Senate doesn’t – that doesn’t include developing nations with developed nations. Well, that stuck with us.”

The federal government is spending more than $50 billion to bail out General Motors, with no end in sight. But the UAW union refused to sacrifice its privileged position to save the company, demanding excessive wages and benefits that are much higher than most Americans get. The Obama Administration caved in to its demands, saddling GM with high labor costs that may doom the company in the long run.

As the Washington Post notes today, the “concessions” that Obama obtained from the UAW were merely cosmetic: “Union concessions were ‘painful’ only by the peculiar standards of Big Three labor relations: At a time when some American workers are facing stiff pay cuts, UAW workers gave up their customary paid holiday on Easter Monday and their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours per week. They still get health benefits that are far better than those received by many American families upon whose tax money GM jobs now depend. Ditto for UAW hourly wages . . . . Cumbersome UAW work rules have only been tweaked.” Earlier, the Post lamented the “preferential treatment of the autoworkers’ union at the expense” of other company stakeholders and creditors, noting that “the union can boast that it has been promised no loss in ‘base hourly pay, no reduction in . . . health care, and no reduction in pensions,’” even though excessive union wages and benefits helped sink the company. Small wonder that even the liberal Post, which backed Obama’s bailout of GM in March, now has soured on it.

If GM had rejected a federal bailout, and filed for bankruptcy in December, it would be recovering right now, since it could have used bankruptcy proceedings to tear up the collective bargaining agreements with the United Auto Workers that saddle it with excessive wages and benefits and rigid work rules, and it would also be benefiting from the fall in gas prices from $4 last year to $2.50 now. By avoiding a federal takeover, it would also have greater freedom to oppose costly regulations proposed by the Obama Administration, such as CAFE and global warming regulations, which will destroy tens of thousands of autoworker jobs).

The bailout is neither necessary nor likely to be successful in the long run. In its auto bailout in the 1970s, England did the same things that Obama is doing now, like propping up high union wages and promoting the production of little “green” cars consumers may not want. Its bailout failed miserably, destroying the British auto industry’s chance of survival.

Even more wasteful than the GM bailout is Obama’s wasteful $800 billion stimulus package, which has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs.

Even as it engages in costly, unauthorized auto bailouts that have no legal basis, the Administration is abdicating core federal responsibilities like enforcing the voting-rights laws. Political appointees in the Obama Justice Department recently blocked action against a racist, anti-semitic hate group (whose members included an Obama poll-watcher and city democratic official) that used nightsticks and racial epithets to drive white voters away from a polling place in Philadelphia last year. The Obama Justice Department has also rubberstamped unconstitutional legislation, failed to protect the voting rights of American servicemen, and been deafeningly silent about a liberal black political boss in Mississippi who prevented voters from casting ballots and engaged in vote fraud.

The federal government is giving another $30 billion in taxpayer money to General Motors to allow it to operate without having to cut excessive union wages. The Obama Administration is “gambling” on its ability to turn around the company under government control.

The Obama Administration has said it will now interfere not just with the “selection of the company’s board of directors,” but also in “fundamental corporate decisions,” and “major corporate events and transactions.” For example, Obama recently pressured GM to keep its headquarters in crime-ridden, economically-collapsing Detroit.

The $30 billion is excessive even if the Administration’s wildest hopes come true. Even if federal money were the only way to keep GM afloat (which it isn’t — GM could be made competitive simply by cutting its excessively high employee wages to lower levels that still exceed average American wages), and even if the bailout saved not only GM jobs but also the jobs of “related suppliers and dealers,” “the price of the U.S. government bailout comes to about $125,000 per employee, including those working for related suppliers and dealers,” according to the Washington Post.

If GM had rejected a federal bailout and takeover, and simply filed for bankruptcy in December, it would be recovering on its own right now, since it could have used bankruptcy proceedings to tear up the collective bargaining agreements with the United Auto Workers that saddle it with excessive wage and benefits and rigid work rules, and it would also be benefiting from the recent collapse of oil prices. It was record-high gas prices that forced consumers to buy smaller cars last year, battering GM’s finances, which were based around selling big cars. But gas prices have fallen from over $4 a gallon last year to $2.50 now. So the bailout is saving no jobs, it’s just allowing GM to keep union wages high at taxpayer expense, while keeping it from becoming competitive in the long run. (The recent drop in gas prices will also mask the effects of incompetent management of GM by the Obama Administration. On the other hand, the Administration’s CAFE and global warming regulations, which GM opposed before it was taken over by the Administration, will destroy tens of thousands of autoworker jobs).

The bailout is neither necessary nor likely to be successful in the long run. In its failed auto bailout in the 1970s, Britain did the same things that Obama is doing, like propping up high union wages and promoting the production of little “green” cars consumers may not want. Its bailout failed miserably, destroying the British auto industry’s chance of survival.

“‘Countries . . . protect ailing auto companies on the theory that they need to protect jobs,’ said Maryann N. Keller, an independent auto analyst. ‘But it’s not clear that protecting companies leads to the revival of those companies.’ As for the jobs, Keller said ‘a lot of that is bunk’ because Americans would buy the same number of cars no matter who the maker is. ‘Somebody would still make the parts,’ she said. ‘They would just be made for a different customer.’”

Why is the Obama Administration doing something so wasteful? Politics. The UAW is one of the biggest sources of money and manpower for the Democratic Party and Obama, and the UAW is now calling the shots. (The UAW spent millions electing Obama).

While taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars bailing out the Detroit automakers, the UAW has made little in the way of sacrifices, refusing to accept cuts in pay that could keep the automakers able to compete with lower-cost competitors. As even the liberal Washington Post lamented, “the union can boast that it has been promised no loss in ‘base hourly pay, no reduction in . . . health care, and no reduction in pensions,’” even though excessive union wages and benefits helped sink the company. Meanwhile, the government has ripped off pension funds and bondholders who loaned the car companies money.

The bailouts aren’t the only outrageous waste of taxpayer money taking place right now. Even bigger is the wasteful $800 billion stimulus package, which is harming the economy, both by triggering foolish trade wars that have backfired and cost at least 40,000 jobs, and by driving up interest rates for businesses that need to borrow money to expand or create jobs. (The government is keeping down interest rates on its own debt by printing vast sums of money to buy its own bonds, in order to finance the exploding national debt, which will result in massively higher taxes).

In conjunction with today’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, the Heartland Institute (my organization and conference host) is releasing “Climate Change Reconsidered: A Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” The 880-page book (posted entirely online at the Web site) challenges the scientific basis for concerns that global warming is man-made or is a cause for concern.

The report rebuts the several manifestations of findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental (I would say Pro-Governmental or Governmentalovin’) Panel on Climate Change, which serves as the foundation for several policies favored by President Obama and Congressional Democrats to limit greenhouse gas emissions. From the NIPCC site:

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report addresses several scientific areas, including global climate models, temperature record observations, solar variability, climate cycles, species extinction, glaciers, sea level, and more. In announcing the release of the book, Heartland President Joseph Bast said:

“I think it is fair to say that this is the largest independent compilation of research on climate change ever published, and I think it marks a real turning point in the national and international debates on climate….

“Whereas the IPCC pretends it has absolute confidence in its findings, and puts forward projections that might be predictions, but maybe they’re not predictions, this book doesn’t do that. It’s much more intellectually modest and I think honest.”

I, for one, am glad to finally see a major resource in this area that is not paid for and owned by government. Let them do things they are good at like running postal delivery, banks, and automobile companies.