Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Apparently I have made a few enemies (surprise!) after my "Axis of Weasels" comment a few weeks ago about the University-Environmentalist-Media complex that disregards a measured, realistic approach to science and economics, especially when it comes to the global warming issue. First the president of the Society of Environmental Journalists accused me of slandering his organization's members (scroll to comments), and now Dave Nemazie of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science wants me to pay an exorbitant amount to obtain documents that pertain to UMCES's collaboration with left-wing activist foundations.

How much? Try somewhere between $11,900 and $14,677 (PDF). How he narrowed it to those precise figures, I don't know. What I asked for were copies (electronically) of all correspondence between UMCES and the four environmental activist groups who either did work on, or paid for, the alarmist report (PDF) that UMCES did for the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. The charges are supposed to represent "a reasonable fee related to the recovery of actual costs that will be incurred in responding to the [records] request." I've been down this road before with the Free (but don't call us Open) State, when I sought records from the Maryland Department of the Environment many months ago.

So, what can we assume about the relationship between UMCES and these environmental activists, based upon the five-figure blockade Nemazie has thrown up? Either:

1. This is a cozy relationship beyond anything we can imagine. That this public institution is influenced by an extremist group like the Town Creek Foundation ("Global climate change may be the most important challenge of our time. Twenty years from now our children and grandchildren will find it hard to understand how we fiddled away a half trillion dollars (and counting) in Iraq as the planet burned") is undoubtedly an embarrassment, thus making it necessary to prevent details of the relationship from becoming public.

Or:

2. That there really is up to $14,677-worth of paper that addresses my inquiry, and it can be presumed that all four activist groups (the others being the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment) had pretty much total control over the report's contents.

Sometimes it's just more fun to speculate about what the truth is, given limited evidence, than it is to get what you ask for.

UPDATE 4:30 p.m., Oct. 13:

Just received this response from Dave Nemazie after asking how many pages he said were responsive to my request:

Your Maryland PIA request to UMCES dated 11 September 2008 basically seeks nearly all, if not all, communications of the Science and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change since its members include representatives from the World Wildlife Fund and National Wildlife Federation. The Science and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change had multiple meetings over several months in which comprehensive information including various publications, websites, and drafts were exchanged between members. I estimate that this portion of the request would make up the vast bulk of the response requiring approximately 30,000 pages to fully respond to your request.
 
Please let me know if you would like to narrow your request and I would re-estimate the costs.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Center for Climate Strategies and their fellow economic holocaust deniers in North Carolina continued their shenanigans this week as they formally released 56 recommendations to create artificial green jobs at the expense of useful ones. The state's Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG — sounds like some kind of garment, doesn't it? "That's one ugly CAPAG you're wearing!") posted its final report this week, which is not dissimilar to what they've done with other state climate commissions.

What is different with North Carolina, as opposed to the other states, is that CCS went out of their way to go to an outside entity — Appalachian State University's (should be called "Alternative") Energy Center — to conduct an additional economic analysis of their recommendations. The reason for this is obvious: my colleagues at the John Locke Foundation have pounded away for over a year at CCS's/CAPAG's willful disregard for current climate science and trends; their absurd economic claims; and their suspect changing of numbers, seemingly on a whim. It got so bad that CCS felt the need to shore up their credibility by overhauling the personnel page on their Web site to emphasis more economics credentials.

Anyway, CCS subcontracted the Energy Center to put lipstick on their pig, and the ASU gang used a distinctly rosy shade (PDF) in doing so. Here's what the swine left on the CAPAG collar: a projection that the state would realize 15,000 new jobs, $565 million in "employee and proprietor income," and $302 million in gross state product by 2020. Compare that to what the Beacon Hill Institute, who analyzed CAPAG's recommendations for the Locke Foundation earlier this year, found: "By 2011, the state would shed more than 33,000 jobs, annual investment would drop by about $502.4 million, real disposable income by more than $2.2 billion, and real state Gross Domestic Product by about $4.5 billion." So I guess the question boils down to, whose analysis do you believe: a political science graduate student's or PhD economists'?

But wait, there's one final knee-slapper: In an effort to legitimize the Energy Center's study, they enlisted Adam Rose to track down six peer reviewers for comment. That wouldn't be so unusual except that Rose is listed by CCS as one of their "team members," and has been paid for work he's done for CCS in the past. So not surprisingly these peer review comments (kept anonymous, and do you really wonder why?) lavished praise on the Energy Center's work:

• "I find no logical errors and am impressed by the sophistication of the analysis; it is superior to most impact analyses written over the last decade."
• "I must say that the document is superior to many I see."
• "There is an abundance of careful and thoughtful work on converting the options to reduce greenhouse gases to some accounting measures."
• "Two thumbs up!" (oops — clicked on the "Ebert and Roeper" tab by accident)

All in all, a "certified fresh" review if you're projecting a fantasy tale, but if reality is your measuring stick, then you've got splat.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

You've got to wonder if there's any room for climate sanity left in governance and politics if a man recognized as one of the most conservative governors in America has bought into global warming alarmism. That's what has happened with Gov. Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who last year created the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee to gin up some plans (extracted from the ideas of the Center for Climate Strategies) to cut down on carbon emissions in the state. You might think that Sanford did so as a political nod to the environmentalists in his state, but his executive order (PDF) that created CECAC reflected a passionate tone:

For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County. In some cases, it's been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it's meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels. While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man's activity — or just the effects of nature taking its course – I've had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day. When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.

Man is quite clearly having an impact in that part of the world, and while it's been my longtime belief as a conservative that I should exercise as many rights and freedoms as possible, those rights and freedoms end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago when CECAC released its final report, which included 51 policy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases in South Carolina. Here's what Sanford had to say:

“Some of these recommendations will make a whole lot of sense for South Carolina and others won’t. But we believe this report is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate – and it is our sincere hope that many of these findings will be implemented in South Carolina.”

The governor's press release added that with the CECAC process he hoped South Carolina "could begin to act on those issues on its own, before being saddled with costly future mandates from Washington, D.C." — as if any state could avoid that burden. As for CCS/CECAC's assertions about its final recommendations, they claim to have done an economic analysis of 33 of its 51 proposals and found that if implemented they would cost approximately $1.6 billion by the year 2020. This is a big change from the kinds of economic claims CCS used to make with commissions in other states, when they would boast that their ideas would produce net gains in state economies (billions of dollars)  and net increases in jobs (hundreds of thousands). They don't do that so much any more. As for the other 18 recommendations they don't quantify, well, I guess they don't want to make it appear the state will be that bad off because of carbon mitigation measures.

Still, it appears that even those numbers in the Palmetto State are short in their estimations, and thank God for the South Carolina Policy Council and the Beacon Hill Institute for bringing some reality to the discussion. The upshot:

Economic analysis of the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC) report would cost taxpayers billions of dollars while offering a negligible environmental benefit, according to the Policy Council study performed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute. The Center for Climate Strategies, authors of the CECAC report, propose tax increases and heavier regulations on businesses.

Findings from the study:

-CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
-In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs.
-In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
-In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836.
-Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent.

And Gov. Sanford thinks this "is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate?"

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

True to expectations, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science withheld their global warming alarmist report from public scrutiny (except for leaking it to their friends at the Baltimore Sun) until last week, when they formally rolled it out (PDF) with the overall recommendations from the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. As I mentioned in an earlier Cooler Heads post, the Sun reported on the UMCES study:

Look for balmier winters and blistering summers in the decades to come. Enjoy the colorful fall foliage in Western Maryland – while you can. And unless circumstances change, prepare to see a different mix of plants, trees and birds by the end of the century, worsening dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay, and for the state that some call "America in miniature" to get dramatically smaller as rising waters push the shoreline inland.

So says a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive assessment of how Maryland could be altered by global climate change.

The report, which was edited by UMCES's Donald Boesch and written collectively (by collectivists?) by 17 scientists from Maryland universities and two men associated with the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as (surprise!) two representatives from environmentalist groups: the World Wildlife Fund ("Climate change is the number one environmental issue of the 21st century") and the National Wildlife Federation ("Global warming is the single biggest threat to wildlife today"). The Sun did not identify those two enviro-groups in its story. The report was also funded (surprise again!) by the Town Creek Foundation ("Global climate change may be the most important challenge of our time. Twenty years from now our children and grandchildren will find it hard to understand how we fiddled away a half trillion dollars (and counting) in Iraq as the planet burned") and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment. Somehow the Sun forgot to report that also.

I also predicted in my earlier CH post that "this report is probably littered with many 'could be'-like phrases, based not on observational data but instead on fanciful computer modeling devoid of any proof of anthropogenic cause…." You've seen one IPCC-derivative, you've seen them all — from the UMCES report:

"This is an assessment of the likely consequences of the changing global climate for Maryland’s agricultural industry, forestry resources, fisheries resources, freshwater supply, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and human health…"

"The Assessment was based on extensive literature review and model projections…"

"The results from supercomputer models of the responses of climate to increased greenhouse gas concentrations were used to project future conditions for Maryland…"

"…summer droughts may increase groundwater demand for agricultural irrigation…."

"Crop production may increase initially, but then decline later in the century…"

"Later in the century, crop production is likely to be reduced…"

"Rains and winds from hurricanes are likely to increase…"

And so on…likely, maybe, coulda, woulda, shoulda…if ifs and buts were candies and nuts…

Like most of these alarmist reports, the UMCES work focuses much on derivative impacts upon other ecological areas (coastline, wildlife, agriculture, forests, etc.) based upon the deeply flawed, gussied-up climate super-models funded by environmental extremists. In fact, the entire Maryland Commission on Climate Change is funded completely by such alarmist grantmakers. So it doesn't surprise that they would completely ignore real and observed climate trend data.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I hate to be the Baby Ruth in the punchbowl at the celebration over John McCain's choice for a running mate, but since it's my job to follow these things, I've got to highlight one issue where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has aligned with the GOP candidate that makes many conservatives cringe: global warming.

Gov. Palin signed an administrative order last September that created the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. Her order is perhaps not as strident on greenhouse gas emissions as some other governors, but she still buys into the argument that GHGs must be reduced.

Unfortunately her Department of Environmental Conservation hired the Center for Climate Strategies as their climate commission management team. I requested documents pertaining to the CCS hire from DEC and was sent some records, but others were identified as "deliberative" and therefore withheld from me, which officials said was allowed under state law. I still have my doubts, because other records sent to me appeared to fall into that category but were sent anyway. Regardless, the withholding of several documents with regard to an issue that does not fall under "highly-sensitive" or "security-related" undermines the governor's reputation for greater government transparency.

As for CCS, it all began last August when DEC's Tom Chapple (now working in the private sector) reached out to CCS's executive director (PDF) Tom Peterson, "to discuss the opportunities and the possibility of CCS interest in helping Alaska." In fact, it appears that Chapple was the driving force behind the state's hiring of the Pennsylvania-based advocacy group, to manage Alaska's development of their greenhouse gas emissions policy.

Chapple learned some about CCS from the Washington Dept. of Ecology's Janice Adair — as his handwritten notes show (PDF) – which include a discussion about how to work out a sole source contract for CCS, and that "some states have paid some, some have paid nothing" (Washington state paid CCS $200,000). Other notes (PDF) from a conference call, presumably that included Ken Colburn of CCS, show that the typical CCS cookie-cutter process was explained, and that as elsewhere CCS would handle everything, once hired: Meetings, scheduling, technical information, Web site, preparation of pre-meeting documents, meeting minutes, etc. Oh, and we can't forget CCS's own grant-funding service.

In the meantime Gov. Palin signed her administrative order on Sept. 14, 2007.

A month later negotiations between Chapple of DEC and CCS representatives intensified, as they began to discuss what the typical CCS "process memo" would contain. A draft (PDF) of the agreement said, "Although additional research may be needed to help the public and policymakers better understand Alaska's changing climate and how to anticipate and respond to its effects, the time for climate debate is over; it is now time for climate action." Also, the document states on page 13 clearly what is off-limits: "Participants will not debate the science of climate change…." Private funders are identified as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Marisla Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and others. The opening negotiating cost (PDF, see second page) for the process was set at $480,000.

As if total control over the process wasn't enough for CCS either, though, there's this: CCS recommended who would be appointed (PDF) to the climate commission. Read the list and note how strongly the representation is that they want from environmentalism and government. Meanwhile private business gets short shrift, as do climate scientists, taxpayer activists, property rights activists, and other protectors of individual rights.

On November 6, 2007 the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet held its third meeting, in which CCS was allowed to make the case (PDF) for being hired as its management consultant. Ken Colburn, in his PowerPoint presentation (PDF), promoted CCS's nonsensical economic analysis from Arizona (285,000 new jobs and $5.5 billion in net savings to the state!) and New Mexico ($2.1 billion in savings to the state). As I've reported in the past, those claims by CCS have been thoroughly debunked.

But unsurprisingly the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner swallowed the Colburn claims (PDF), unchallenged. The newspaper reported that Larry Hartig, Palin's commissioner of environmental conservation, expressed interest in CCS: "If it's not them, we should do something similar to that." Also, Colburn explained that CCS's services typically cost about $500,000, "but states generally pay only about 10 percent of the cost," the News-Miner reported. "CCS covers the rest with funding from various foundations" – that is, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Later in November DEC's Chapple sent out a plea (PDF) – and forwarded to Colburn — to various state departments asking for help "in shaping up the scope of work for the proposed contract with (CCS)." The message was met with enthusiasm from Colburn: "This is a remarkable email, carrying precisely the right content and precisely the right tone." Translation: "I won't stop kissing your rump until you hire us." More negotiations and contract details were addressed (PDF) in a conference call Nov. 29.

In early December 2007 DEC's Hartig, with Chapple and Colburn in the loop, considered engaging the National Commission on Energy Policy (PDF) to help on climate adaptation strategies. NCEP is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which is also paying the total cost for Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's climate and energy policy advisers.

As the February meeting approached in which CCS would be formally approved as manager by the Sub-Cabinet, questions were raised (PDF) about why the cost for Alaska's portion of CCS's services rose from $49,000 to $180,000. No other documents were provided to me that addressed this situation and its resolution, but the final contract (PDF) shows that the state is indeed contributing the $180,000. However, the full budget (see pages 36-37 of the contract) for the process is double what any of these have cost in other states: $972,196. This could be attributed to the distance of the state from the lower 48, but it's hard to believe that could account for that great an increase in the average CCS budget.

As for the holes in my story, Alaska DEC's Gary Mendivil sent a letter with the documents that were provided, but also explained that some records were withheld (PDF) from me. My original request was received by DEC on Dec. 27, 2007, and according to an email from Mendivil on Feb. 1, 2008, he "was told that the stack of records that was sent to the (State of Alaska) attorney for review was four inches thick…." The CD containing records was mailed to me on Feb. 20 (according to DEC's response letter), and the documents therein did not even measure a half-inch, much less anything close to four inches. Even with the documents they listed as withheld (PDF), it would be hard to believe they could measure four inches.

When asked why any records needed to be withheld in the first place, Mendivil provided a minimal explanation: "We've claimed a privilege under AS 40.25.120(a)(4) ("records required to be kept confidential by a federal law or regulation or by state law")." Not satisfied, I asked which federal or state laws DEC was citing to justify keeping a lid on certain records. His answer:

"The Alaska Supreme Court has adopted the common law recognition of a deliberative process privilege. Because Alaska's statutory definition of "state law" encompasses common law as well as positive law, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that the deliberative process privilege is one of the judicially recognized state law exceptions to public access under the public records act. This is the privilege that the State has claimed on certain documents identified on the privilege log that was most recently given to you. In other words, the documents withheld as "deliberative process" show the mental processes of government decision makers, and are thereby protected from disclosure."

If you review the list of withheld records, and compare it to the documents DEC did provide, you might wonder what criteria they used to determine "deliberative" vs. non-deliberative. It seems clear that many of the records they did supply could have also fallen under "deliberative" status as well.

I would say it's pretty odd that the State of Alaska could withhold documents from the public about a commission that will go a long way towards influencing its policies on energy, environment, property rights, taxes, the state budget, land use, education, and just about every other public policy area. The DEC has not given a clear explanation why, nor clearly cited a law that allows them to make a "deliberation" exception. And even if they could, what possible reason would they have to do so when there are no national or state security issues at stake, or any other sensitive issues?

DEC's decision, as has been the case in other states where CCS is working, undermines the claim in their contracts and process memos that their "process is fully transparent." There is no clear indication that Gov. Palin is behind these DEC decisions – on the face it looks like all she has done is sign the administrative order creating the Sub-Cabinet, then depended on her environmental agency leaders (Chapple and Hartig) to make the rest of the decisions. But the way this has played out sure does foul up her reputation as a reformer in pursuit of greater government transparency.