Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety earlier this week reported how smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles are less safe than larger vehicles, and my John Locke Foundation colleague Roy Cordato noted how well it fits the policy prescriptions of global warming alarmists:

I guess maybe that’s why the greens like these cars. Not only do they reduce atmospheric CO2 but they help cut down on the surplus population.

Lest you think that’s an exaggeration, just read for yourself about the population control (i.e., abortion) funding efforts of wealthy environmental activist foundations such as the Turner Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and others. Or you could read about it at the Acton Institute site.

John Andrews, director of The Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, has checked in with a report about the debate last week between “Red Hot Lies” author Chris Horner and climatologist James White. Andrews says that despite an audience that far exceeded the auditorium’s capacity of 300, the Denver-area media (not surprisingly) ignored the event:

For example, editors at Channel 7 for some reason didn’t feel this fit their upcoming series on green issues, while Denver Post environment reporter Mark Jaffe told me archly that Horner’s presence made this occasion “not a debate… not news.”

But CCU and the Centennial Institute shrugged off the snub.  As I pointed out to Jaffe, our two nationally-known experts on climate science and climate policy seemed to think it was a debate.  So did a century-old local university.  So did our capacity crowd of several hundred open-minded Coloradans.  If the MSM choose to be close-minded about this, it’s really their problem, not ours.

Didn’t a major newspaper just close in Denver?

Meanwhile, I hope these little events (like the recent one between John Christy and William Schlesinger) will continue and then the public will benefit from all perspectives on the issue.

The bad economy is helping global warming alarmists accomplish their goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, says USA Today:

From the United States to Europe to China, the global economic crisis has forced offices to close and factories to cut back. That means less use of fossil fuels such as coal to make energy. Fossil-fuel burning, which creates carbon dioxide, is the primary human contributor to global warming.

A recession-driven drop in emissions “is good for the environment,” says Emilie Mazzacurati of Point Carbon, an energy research company. “In the long term, that’s not how we want to reduce emissions.”

Whether the warmers want to acknowledge it or not, a recessionary economy is how they want to reduce emissions. Whether you limit inexpensive, efficient energy usage or you tax it, you raise costs and therefore inhibit consumption and growth.

Bonus journalistic boner observation #1 from the USA Today article: Reporter Traci Watson writes, “As carbon dioxide builds in the atmosphere, it traps heat and warms the Earth. The result: melting glaciers, rising seas and fiercer droughts.” Why hasn’t that been the case in this decade, Traci?

Bonus journalistic boner observation #2 from the USA Today article: Traci sez, “European nations face a 2012 deadline to cut their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, a global-warming treaty written in 1997 and renounced by President George W. Bush in 2001.” Why jump to 2001, Trace? What about the Clinton administration (never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification) and the U.S. Senate (who voted unanimously that they would not support ratification)?

Remember last month when the president and vice president photo-opped the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill in Denver? Part of the trip was devoted to President Obama’s promotion of “green” energy initiatives, many of which will benefit from the mass subsidization in the new legislation. One project he toured was a solar panel project on top of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, which the Denver Post says, “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” Well, investigative reporter Todd Shepherd of Colorado’s Independence Institute tried to verify that and other claims about the project:

…That claim cannot be verified at this time, and in fact, seems to be belied by the scant information provided by the museum and other sources. Laura Holtman, public relations manager for the museum said in an email, “Because the array generates less than 5 percent of the museum’s power, [the purchased energy] is not a particularly large bill.”

The Independence Institute asked the Denver Museum of Science and Nature to provide certain statistical information regarding the now-famous solar array. Specifically, the Institute asked for:

1 ) Two years worth of electric bills prior to the installation of the solar array,
2 ) All electric bills following the completion of the installation.

The Museum denied those requests.

As Shepherd explains, it turns out the solar panels were so expensive ($720,000) that the museum declined to undertake the project for itself. Instead, a private company was able to make it worthwhile to own the project via taxpayer-subsidized “rebates” through Xcel Energy, and via state and federal tax “incentives.”

Given the circumstances it is absurd to believe the claims made about the amount of power generated by the panels. But note the statement: “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” Any detail beyond that hopeful generality is lost on the uncurious, lazy reporter. Note that the statement isn’t talking about the energy generated from the panels; just how much solar energy is hitting the top of the roof. And enough energy on the rooftop to power 30 homes for how long? Or how long does the sun have to hit the roof to power the homes (and for how long)? How big are the homes? Etc., etc….

And the museum has no business withholding the information that Shepherd is looking for. According to its 2007 annual report, almost a quarter (22.6%) of DMNS’s support was coerced from taxpayers: from the City and County of Denver, and from the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (which receives 1 percent of a sales and use tax in a seven-county region surrounding the city). I would say that reaches the public interest threshold where you ought to turn over your electric bills, especially when you are trying to get to the bottom of another dubious project that is heavily subsidized by taxes and surcharges.

Bonus observation from the Denver Post story: Obama cheerleading reporter Allison Sherry, again demonstrating she is devoid of any critical thinking capacity, regurgitates his assertion that “the stimulus bill could create 60,000 jobs here and 400,000 jobs nationwide.” Really? Colorado would likely get 15 percent of the stimulus-driven jobs for the whole nation?

Bonus observation II from the article: Blake Jones, who owns the company that installed the solar panels, looks forward to the stimulus funds:

Jones said he called other CEOs of solar companies to evaluate what they found in the stimulus bill. “The consensus is that this bill will immediately benefit companies like ours,” he said.

Jones said green-technology companies have dozens of projects on hold because of the freeze on venture-capital funding. He believes the stimulus package will get that funding flowing again.

More proof that these things are only attractive with a massive influx of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

Not Al Gore, but a local alarmist:

“Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?”

Noted Scholars Debate the Environmental, Economic, and Political Impact of Past and Present International Climate Efforts

March 25, 2009 – This April, the public is invited to hear Dr. James White and Christopher Horner discuss opposing views on the global climate debate, specifically in regard to the Kyoto Protocol. Sponsored by the Centennial Institute of Colorado Christian University, the debate is scheduled for April 8, 7:30-9:00 p.m., in the Lakewood Cultural Center, 470 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, 80226.

The debate topic will be “Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?” Dr. White, taking the affirmative, is a professor of geological sciences as well as a fellow and the director of INSTAAR at the University of Colorado-Boulder. He specializes in global change, paleoclimate dynamics, and biogeochemistry. Christopher Horner, taking the opposite position, is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington, D.C. As an attorney, he has represented CEI, scientists, and members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in federal courts, and he is the author of two books on the climate issue.

Ought to be at least as good as William Schlesinger vs. John Christy.