2010

CEI Weekly is a compilation of articles and blog posts from CEI’s fellows and associates sent out via e-mail every Friday. Also included in the Weekly newsletter is a brief description of CEI’s weekly podcast and a feature on a major CEI breakthrough made during the week. To sign up for CEI Weekly, go to http://cei.org/newsletters.


CEI Weekly
March 12, 2010


>>CEI Against Climate Change Policy
>>On Tuesday, the two articles on the front page of the Washington Times’ Commentary section were written by CEI analysts William Yeatman and Chris Horner, both criticizing proposed funding of green jobs by the Obama administration.

>>Additionally, CEI’s Chris Horner also appeared on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, to debate the US’ role in the IMF’s Climate Fund which would pay for climate programs.


>>Shaping the Debate
Real Competition Among Health Plans
John Berlau and Jonathan Moore’s article in the Politico

Avoid Land Grabs while Downsizing Detroit
Marc Scribner’s article in the Detroit News

FCC Summit Pushes Broadband for all, Spending Unused Stimulus
Wayne Crews and Ryan Radia’s citation in the Washington Examiner

DOE E-Mails To Wind Energy Lobbyists Cast Cloud Over Green Jobs Proposals
Chris Horner’s citation in the Investor’s Business Daily


>>Best of the Blogs
Climate Alarm Declining – Gallup
by Marlo Lewis
Gallup’s annual update of Americans’ attitudes on things environmental found that 48% of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009, and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first posed the question.

The Hidden Costs of Health Care Reform: “Obamacare Is A Budgetary Disaster”
by Hans Bader
The health care bills backed by President Obama will cost $2.3 trillion, not the $900 billion Obama claims, and will be a “budgetary disaster” that drives up the national debt, explains health care expert James C. Capretta.  The Obama administration managed to hide $1.4 trillion in costs generated by the health care reform bill though a series of budgetary “gimmicks” that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to treat as valid in scoring the bill’s enormous cost.

Lagerfeld, Chanel – Jumping the Shark with Global Warming Fashion?
by Christine Hall
Did Karl Lagerfeld jump the shark with his fall-winter 2010-11 ready-to-wear collection for Chanel? The collection was described by the AP as global warming in theme, and subsequently scorned on Newsbusters.  The show featured icebergs reportedly flown in from Sweden (whoa! with the carbon footprint!) and some extreme costume elements – like an antler-and-ear headdress – that would only appeal as street-wear to a Lady Gaga or Bjork.  Ridiculous and unwearable?  Certainly.


>>LibertyWeek Podcast
Episode 83: What Would Reagan Do?
Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner collaborate to bring you episode 82. We cover the ever-growing deficit, the Reagan legacy, Cablevision v. ABC, the RNC’s fundraising strategy and David Paterson on scandal watch.


>>Support CEI

Like what you read?
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 25-year record of success is made possible by our over 3,000 supporters. Make sure to stop by www.cei.org/support and make a donation to continue your support or become a supporter. Curious about all the possible ways to donate to CEI? Contact Al Canata at acanata@cei.org or 202-331-2280 to find out more.

Charles Huang

Web and Media Associate

Competitive Enterprise Institute

chuang@cei.org

http://www.cei.org

http://www.openmarket.org

202-331-1010

Imagine lobbyists for the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Nature Conservancy controlled an EPA rulemaking panel that would decide whether a petition to cap greenhouse gas emissions sponsored by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership — an alliance that includes all three aforementioned environoia groups — would become law. Wouldn’t every activist with a cause love to have such an arrangement?

The equivalent of that is what’s transpiring in New Mexico, where the state Environmental Improvement Board is considering a rule that would cap CO2 emissions at 25 percent of 1990 levels. As New Mexico Watchdog reporter Jim Scarantino has written in a series of articles, the majority of EIB members — including (and especially) its chairman, Gregory Green — have conflicts of interest because they represent (and are paid by) activist groups who jointly brought the petition before the EIB.

Last week the Rio Grande Foundation’s Paul Gessing (NM Watchdog is a project of the Albuquerque-based conservative think tank) testified before the EIB and challenged members Green, Gay Dillingham and James Gollin to recuse themselves from hearing the petition:

Gessing told the EIB he that the very integrity of the process, aside from the merits of the issue, was undermined because “there was more than a reasonable basis to question the impartiality and fairness” of these members of the EIB in considering this petition. Those questions arise from financial and employment ties between Green and the petitioner New Energy Economy and his representation as a lobbyist on energy and environmental issues for four parties to the NEE peitition who have hired him through the Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy. Gollin and Dillingham are, respectively, an officer and director of organizations that are allied with NEE in promoting the very same emissions cap they are being asked to impose upon New Mexico  as members of the EIB.

And just look at the faces (video)of Green, Dillingham and Gollin as Gessing criticizes their oversight of this dog-and-pony show.

Adding insult to injury, Green’s group stacked their literature at a table where members of the public were required to sign in for the hearing. The literature promoted a lunch for petition supporters paid for by Green’s New Energy Economy. Afterward, in the comments section of Scarantino’s report, Green made a feeble effort to show fairness by offering to let Rio Grande put materials out for public consumption.

Gallup’s annual update of Americans’ attitudes on things environmental found that 48% of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009, and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first posed the question.

Similarly, the percentage of those who believe global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped from 40% in 2008 to 32% today.

Among the causes for these changes in opinion, Gallup mentions, “publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence.” I’d like to propose another, related factor: humor.

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a state legislator go toe-to-toe on the climate change issue with an alarmist, but the Fox News affiliate in Salt Lake City caught that very thing on camera this week. On Wednesday after a student-led global warming rally at the legislature, State Rep. Mike Noel, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, found himself in the same room with former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. Here’s the full discussion, in which the skeptic Noel is surrounded by environoiacs, including one who kept trying to butt in.

You might recall last month the Utah legislature passed a few measures in opposition to placing limits on greenhouse gas emissions, including a recommendation to Gov. Gary Herbert that the state withdraw from the Western Climate Initiative.

My colleague Julie Walsh flags a funny statement by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), quoted earlier this week (Mar. 9) in Greenwire (subscription required). Although Lieberman, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) want to include cap-and-trade in their draft climate and energy legislation, they are reluctant to use the term.

Greenwire reports:

Lieberman also downplayed the use of the term “cap and trade” when it comes to limiting emissions, even though that is generally the plan with their bill. “We don’t use that term anymore,” he said. “We’ll have pollution reduction targets. Remember the Artist Previously Known as Prince?”

According to earlier reports, Graham et al. may propose to combine an electric utility sector cap-and-trade program with carbon taxes on transportation fuels. If so, then Kyotoism is truly dead. Electric utilities are gung-ho for cap-and-trade only if it’s economy-wide, so they can sell the free emission permits they would get under a bill like Waxman-Markey to other sectors receiving fewer or zero freebies.

Also, Waxman-Markey is a non-starter in the Senate because millions of Americans now understand that cap-and-trade is a stealth tax on energy. Combining carbon taxes with cap-and-trade is hardly the bold alternative and fresh start Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are promising. Indeed, if this is what’s on offer, it’s even more obviously a tax, and should be even easier to shoot down!

The Artist Formerly Known As Prince was still Prince even before he changed his name back to Prince! And an energy tax by any other name is just as foul.

Did Karl Lagerfeld jump the shark with his fall-winter 2010-11 ready-to-wear collection for Chanel?  The collection – by one of the most famous and historic design houses in the world – was described by the AP as global warming in theme, and subsequently scorned on Newsbusters.  The show featured icebergs reportedly flown in from Sweden (whoa! with the carbon footprint!) and some extreme costume elements – like an antler-and-ear headdress – that would only appeal as street-wear to a Lady Gaga or Bjork.  Ridiculous and unwearable?  Certainly.  Likely to be available for purchase in Saks Fifth Avenue?  Fear not.

The interesting aspect of Mr. Lagerfeld’s theatrical show is that the mastermind himself seems to show little concern, much less panic, over the purported danger of global warming.  Reuters reported Lagerfeld’s comments:

“‘Have you felt any warming this winter?” Lagerfeld, with trademark black sunglasses and white ponytail, told reporters after showing his autumn collection, referring to freezing cold weather outside. “Maybe that’s all nonsense, who knows.”

The online magazine Zimbio questions whether the Chanel show had anything to do with global warming in the first place.  The Cut reports that Lagerfeld was “inspired by the Ice Hotel in Sweden” – not politics or global warming, noting  that last season, he “put his Chanel models in a barn, with hay and everything, possibly even burrs.”

Personally, my great fear arising from the Chanel collection is that the furry mukluks will make it off the runway and into the real world.  Which might make me wish for  real-world global warming.

(A bunch more photos from the Chanel show here.)

That’s the topic of this week’s National Journal energy blog. In my contribution, I argue that EPA has been playing a mischievous game that endangers democracy, and that Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s legislation to veto the agency’s endangerment finding would remove this threat. 

In a Feb. 22 letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson warns that enactment of the Murkowski legislation would scuttle the joint EPA/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) greenhouse gas/fuel economy rulemaking, which in turn would compel the struggling auto industry to operate under a “patchwork quilt” of state-level fuel-economy regulations.

Ms. Jackson neglects to mention that the patchwork threat exists only because she, reversing Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s decision, granted California a waiverto implement its own GHG/fuel economy program. Had Jackson reaffirmed Johnson’s denial, there would be no danger of a patchwork, hence no ostensible need for the joint EPA/NHTSA rulemaking to avert it.

As my blog post explains, EPA should not have approved the waiver in the first place. The California GHG/fuel economy program violates the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prohibits states from adopting laws or regulations “related to” fuel economy. Worse, the waiver creates a reverse right of preemption whereby states may nullify federal law within their borders — an affront to the Supremacy Clause. 

Specifically, the waiver would allow California, and other states opting into the California program, to nullify within their boundaries the reformed national fuel economy program that Congress enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). That leads straight to a patchwork of state-by-state compliance regimes inimical to a healthy auto industry.

The game EPA is playing is a classic case of bureaucratic self-dealing.

First, EPA endangers the U.S. auto industry by authorizing states to flout federal law and the Constitution. Then, EPA proposes to avert disaster via a rulemaking that just happens to put EPA in the driver’s seat in regulating fuel economy – a power Congress never delegated to EPA when it enacted and amended the Clean Air Act.

Nor is that all. The joint GHG/fuel economy regulation will compel EPA to regulate CO2 from stationary sources – another power Congress never delegated to EPA. By expanding its control over the transport sector, EPA will then have to expand its control over manufacturing, power generation, and much of the commercial and residential sectors, too, because all emit CO2.

In addition, the motor vehicle GHG rule sets the stage for EPA to “tailor,” that is amend, the Clean Air Act so that the agency can delay imposing pre-construction and operating permit requirements on small business, which would surely ignite a political backlash.

So thanks to the endangerment finding, EPA not only gets to play in NHTSA’s fuel-economy sandbox, and extend its tentacles throughout the economy, it also gets to play lawmaker, violating the separation of powers.

In light of all the new powers EPA now expects to wield, it is hardly surprising that EPA never made the strong case against Clean Air Act regulation of CO2 in Massachusetts v. EPA. Here’s what EPA should have argued:

• EPA cannot regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act without regulating CO2 under the Act as a whole. 
• Aplying the Act as a whole to CO2 leads ineluctably to “absurd results” that contravene congressional intent.
• Therefore, Congress could not have intended for EPA to regulate GHG emissions under Sec. 202.

Did EPA throw the fight in the 11th round? I dunno, but losing the Massachusetts case was surely sweet victory to those in the agency who long to regulate America into a ”clean energy future.” The Massachusetts decision laid the groundwork for EPA to deal itself into a position to bypass the people’s elected representatives, impose its will on the auto industry, and, in time, dictate national climate and energy policy.

What happens if Congress enacts Sen. Murkowski’s resolution, nixes the endangerment finding, and mothballs the GHG/fuel economy rule? The authority to make law and national policy returns to where the framers of the Constitution intended — the people’s elected representatives.