Last fall my Carolina Journal colleague David Bass reported about how North Carolina’s Division of Air Quality (and their counterparts in other states) recruited companies they regulate to “voluntarily” become members of the nonprofit Climate Registry, and pay for the privilege of reporting their greenhouse gas emissions (again, no pressure!). Brock Nicholson, NCDAQ’s deputy director at the time, helped launch the Registry, joined its board, got NCDAQ to pay $100,000 for it, traveled on its behalf, and recruited other states to join — all on the North Carolina taxpayers’ dime.
Last month David explained in more detail Nicholson’s activities on behalf of the Registry.
Today his latest story is posted, in which David explains how half of North Carolina’s contribution to the Registry was paid for out of state gas tax revenues:
Former DAQ deputy director Brock Nicholson, who served on the Climate Registry’s board of directors and executive committee, said the funds paid by DAQ were temporary.
“Those were up-front fees to help seed the registry. We don’t anticipate that will ever be paid again,” he said.
Nicholson said North Carolina is benefiting from its partnership with the registry. “This is the foundational work for a program to identify emissions, and then therefore emissions reductions projects that [have] monetary value to our sources in North Carolina,” he said.
So, while North Carolina’s decaying road system continues to fall into disrepair amid cries that gas tax revenues are insufficient to maintain it, environmental bureaucrats are taking it upon themselves to use those same public funds to “seed” an outside, faux-regulatory agency that is unaccountable to voters/citizens/taxpayers. Oh, and an agency that will accomplish nothing to improve human health conditions.
It’s very likely this has happened in your state also.
As I suggest today in an American Spectator piece, we may be to the point where public opinion is completely out of sync with how the best known (at least historically) news outlets are covering the global warming issue. Witness:
- A poll from last summer found that the vast majority of Americans opposed Lieberman/Warner and would not be willing to pay higher prices for electricity or gasoline to combat global warming.
- Pew found in January that of 20 policy issues it asked people to place in order of importance, global warming ranked last.
- A series of recent Rasmussen polls determined: that more respondents believed global warming was due to planetary trends than by human causes; that voters are evenly divided over whether immediate action on global warming is necessary; that 46 percent believe giving government greater control over the economy to fight global warming will be bad for America; and that a majority (54 percent) believe the media exaggerates the dangers of global warming.
- This week Gallup found a record-high 41 percent believe the media exaggerates the threat of global warming. “This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject,” the polling firm reported.
So what does this say after 20+ years of irresponsible media exaggeration of the issue? It tells me a few things: that there is no such thing as a dominant “mainstream media” any more that captivates the news-consuming public. That while it’s nice to have one of these news outlets do your story, it’s not vital, and it’s not necessary to agonize over whether they do so or not. That these historically well-known news outlets are not only losing readership and revenues because of advertising losses, but because of credibility loss and disconnect with their communities. News consumers are smarter these days and know how to detect biased reporting, and they are not buying the product any more. With the speed and efficiency of the Web, it almost doesn’t matter any more where your information gets published; it’s that it does get published, gets found by a few key constituents, and gets launched from there. Can anyone purchase a Sunday paper in any city these days and honestly say it was worth the money?
Yet too many in political activism, public relations, and business believe that if your message hasn’t penetrated these media dinosaurs, then you’ve failed. Well, as the global warming issue illustrates, the skeptics are at least tied with the alarmists if they are not outright winning, despite the lack of respect and attention from the dying news giants. The polls show it clearly. So if the big businesses (you know who you are) who are in bed with the cap-and-taxers in big government and big environmentalism only so they can reap benefits for themselves, while passing costs to consumers and electricity users, you risk a backlash from those who will pay the bill. You are believing the wrong messengers and the evidence is clear.
Today’s News & Observer of Raleigh (one of McClatchy’s tanking newspapers) reports that one of North Carolina’s two investor-owned utilities, Progress Energy (Duke Energy is the other major one), has announced that it will not be able to meet renewable portfolio standard mandates enacted by the state a couple of years ago:
The Raleigh power company has reviewed more than 100 proposals to generate electricity from renewable resources such as solar energy, wind power and agricultural waste. The costs proposed so far are four times as high as Progress had expected, officials said in a meeting with News & Observer editors and writers.
The company will use all of the money it is allowed to spend and hit up against cost caps included in the 2007 state law that requires that more of North Carolina’s electricity come from renewables.
State lawmakers included the cost cap because renewables typically cost more than conventional power plants, and the extra costs would be charged to customers in monthly bills.
The report says state regulators concurred that it is impossible for Progress Energy to meet its targets. As usual environmentalists are in denial about costs for renewables while they reject options that would help produce energy that is cleaner and more affordable:
Customers would pay even more if Congress passed federal renewable mandates that are stricter than North Carolina’s, which are being debated now, (Progress CEO Bill) Johnson said.
Progress would have to pay penalties for noncompliance, passing on the costs to customers. The company estimates that bills in Congress could cost Progress’ residential customers as much as $6 a month, much of it in penalties.
Environmentalists have long contended that utility companies in this state overestimate the cost and downplay the availability of renewable resources. But since the cost proposals submitted to Progress and Duke are confidential, few have seen the numbers.
Progress executives said they have a better way to cut greenhouse gases: by building new nuclear plants. Johnson said new nuclear plants, which don’t burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, will do more to advance the nation’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases than renewables.
Johnson also noted a reality most people understand if they took an Economics 101 course:
Johnson said that biomass — agricultural waste, wood chips and animal droppings — are the state’s biggest renewable fuel resources, but the price is still too high.
“If renewables were easy, effective and plentiful, we’d be doing them,” he said.
As unusual as it has been for global warming alarmists to debate skeptics, I have found it even more rare to find a mainstream news outlet — anywhere — to cover the issue surrounding states’ global warming commissions and the Center for Climate Strategies. Well, after traveling all the way to Anchorage a few weeks ago, I finally found a local TV station who was interested in hearing about it: ABC’s affiliate, which broadcasts throughout Alaska.
It turned out that I was there (when the station did a report about my concerns) on the day before the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, as it’s called up there, was to meet. So after hearing what I had to say, reporter Bob Mallory checked out the meeting to see what CCS and panel members had to say. From his report, where he said a carbon tax was under consideration:
Mallory: As far as scientific debate as to whether global warming is occurring, that’s something that won’t be happening in these meetings.
CCS facilitator Gloria Flora: I think when you look at Gov. Palin’s executive order, and (Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation) Commissioner (Larry) Hartig has made it very clear, that we’re not here to debate who did what when, where are these emissions coming from…we know that there is far more carbon and CO2 in the atmosphere.
In a further on-air discussion with anchor Ty Hardt, Mallory explains how the state’s contract with CCS (as is the case in every state) forbids any discussion or debate about the science of global warming. And in the written version of the report for the station’s Web site, Flora makes this amazing statement:
ABC Alaska News asked Flora, what if the science behind climate change is wrong? Her response: “So what? We’ve saved money. We’ve saved resources. We’ve improved our health. We’ve improved the environment. So, if we’re wrong, hallelujah! You know, we just did a lot of really good things.”
To give you a flavor of the Grape Nuts that CCS is hiring to run their state climate commission meetings, YouTube has a short clip of Flora in full-alarmism.
I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:
During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority. Slain.
I’ve catalogued a lot of evidence that the Center for Climate Strategies, the so-called unbiased “technical consultant” to states for their global warming policy commissions, is totally controlled by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council alarmism advocacy group. This is despite denials by CCS’s executive director, Tom Peterson. Well, in the research for my American Spectator piece yesterday (which explains how now CCS and PEC are now running away from one another — looks bad, ya know) I discovered yet another clear statement that CCS is totally controlled by PEC.
It turns out that last year PEC enlisted an executive search agency to find them a new president and CEO. The job listing (PDF) explained as follows with regard to the position’s responsibilities:
The President & CEO is responsible for managing the overall staff of 27, including four affiliated entities – Enterprising Environmental Solutions, Inc….The position has 8 direct reports, (including) Executive Director of Enterprising Environmental Solutions, Inc., chief operating officer, (etc.)…
Enterprising Environmental Solutions is the nonprofit PEC created and totally controlled (see tax returns), and is where CCS resides as a policy center. So…not only was there board control and sharing of staff, but in this clear statement the executive director of EESI/CCS was to report directly to the president of PEC. A reminder of what Peterson told me back in April 2007:
“The idea that we have advocates for PEC working on the North Carolina project is incorrect,” he said. “(EESI) does not have an advocacy mission, and it doesn’t have an advocacy history.”
By the way, EESI’s Web site has been taken down — I wonder why? Were there some legal problems with this arrangement?
Last night in Hickory, N.C., in a forum co-sponsored by the John Locke Foundation and the Reese Institute for Conservation of Natural Resources, atmospheric scientist John Christy debated William Schlesinger, former dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. It was a skeptic vs. alarmist smackdown, and the local newspaper of record, the Daily Record, thinks that Christy may have prevailed (see sidebar):
An informal, unscientific survey revealed that many attendees, regardless of age, think global warming is overblown and people should not panic about the future.
Schlesinger said most people don’t want to recognize the problem, that they hope it will just go away. “It won’t,” he said. “It will only get worse.”
Show me the evidence was Christy’s mantra. The data doesn’t justify the gloom and doom, he said. Wishful thinking or not, a lot of people who attended the forum agree with Christy.
My colleague at the Locke Foundation, vice president for research (and debate timekeeper) Roy Cordato, had a much stronger take with which I agree, as you might expect:
…Schlesinger said that he was not going to discuss the science. He then went directly to rattling off scary scenarios about the future. So about two thirds of his talk was scare mongering with no actual defense of the hypothesis that human induced catastrophic global warming is in the process of occurring. What is interesting is that in “skipping over the science” he flipped through a number of slides that he had prepared to use including the now infamous and discredited “hockey stick” graph showing 900 years of no climate change and the last 100 years of dramatic warming.
You can watch the whole 75-minute debate on the Locke Foundation’s blog. It’s also posted in eight pieces on YouTube.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Our friends at the Institute for Liberty and The Chilling Effect have cobbled together some “conservative” estimates of how much carbon will be emitted at next week’s swearin’ (in) of the green new president. They came up with a total of 575 million pounds of CO2 as the likely figure.
Will anyone of eco-conscience decide not to go now based on their principles?
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
The New York Times reports today that "a new picture of the early earth" that controverts the earlier consensus-driven, always-right scientific community. Seems their previous belief that the planet was too hot, up until 3.85 billion years ago, for any kind of life to exist was a mistake. From the article, with my added emphasis just because I want to:
Norman H. Sleep, a professor of geophysics at Stanford, recalled that in 1986 he submitted a paper that calculated the probability of life surviving one of the giant, early impacts. It was summarily rejected because a reviewer said that obviously nothing could have lived then.
That is no longer thought to be true.
“We thought we knew something we didn’t,” said T. Mark Harrison, a professor of geochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles. In hindsight the evidence was just not there. And new evidence has suggested a new view of the early Earth.
Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said.
I only bring this up on a global warming Web site for the simple usefulness that so-called experts are capable of contradicting their claims of unassailable science by saying things like what I've italicized above.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Over at my Web site I've posted a long, blow-by-blow account of how Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and his administration repeatedly enlisted the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to pay for his global warming alarmist agenda (a "new energy economy") and for his efforts to keep the federal Bureau of Land Management from leasing for oil and gas exploration on the Roan Plateau. It's sometimes a dry recitation but there are a ton of documents linked that I obtained from the governor's office and from CDNR.
The quick-'n-dirty summary: Almost immediately after he took office Ritter had a "Climate Action Plan" he wanted to pursue, which included two new positions in his administration: a cabinet-level climate policy adviser to create "a bold and visionary climate action policy," and a liaison to the Public Utilities Commission to "develop a climate-wise utility policy." He asked for, and got, two annual grants from Hewlett for $200,000 ($400,000 total) to fund the positions. Ritter worked through Hewlett's environmental program director Hal Harvey — a far-left, Obama-supporting (and -contributing) environmental extremist who founded the Energy Foundation and is president of the crackpot enviro/population control-advocating New-Land Foundation — to pay for his climate people. I guess the state budget process would not come up with the money fast enough for Ritter.
Within a few months Ritter had another environmental cause to fight: obstructing and delaying the Bureau of Land Management from leasing the rights to oil and natural gas exploration on the rich Roan Plateau. It had been ten years already since BLM was given the mandate to lease the Naval Oil and Shale Reserves, and it was finally ready to start doing so after years of environmental study and review. But that still wasn't long enough for Ritter, his eco-cronies, Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar, and Sen. Ken Salazar (pictured). All got involved in trying to further delay BLM.
Part of the strategy was for Ritter's administration to make the case for much slower "phased leasing" of acreage on the Roan, as opposed to the BLM's somewhat quicker but still limited and methodical approach. The governor's Department of Natural Resources sought out (and found) a cheap economist who would be willing to put together a vague case that showed phased leasing was a better idea that would reap better revenues for the state. And can you guess who they asked to pay for said cheap economist? Yep — the Hewlett Foundation, with Hal Harvey more than happy to help out. In fact, Harvey wanted to help so much that he gave campaign contributions to both Salazars and Udall as well.
The congressmen worked at the federal level to implement Ritter's phased leasing goals, with Sen. Salazar's legal counsel begging for the suspect economic analysis to buttress his case. But the congressmen's and Ritter's efforts fell short of their goals, as BLM moved forward with the leasing, which netted nearly $114 million for both the federal and state governments — "the highest grossing onshore oil and natural gas lease sale in BLM history in the lower 48 states."
Nevertheless, it's a sorry tale of how environmental extremists will fight together to the death for measures that would cripple our access to our own sources of affordable energy.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org