Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Leak of Maryland Climate Report

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on August 5, 2008

in Science

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Baltimore Sun on Sunday reported that one of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change's leadership troika, Donald Boesch (pictured) of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, has nursed along 19 fellow scientists (apparently none having to do with meteorology or atmospheric science), as well as representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and two environmental groups (unidentified for some unknown reason), to produce a report that forecasts much hotter temperatures and permanently rising tides:

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.

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, but that would be only imagining things. Why just imagining? Because I am not hopeful after speaking with Dave Nemazie of the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science, who hemmed and hawed when I asked for a copy of the report that (again, I'm guessing) one of the envirogroups involved leaked to the Sun to develop some nice advanced press from sympathetic media. Here's a rough paraphrase of how our phone conversation went:

Me: Can I get a copy of the report?

Nemazie: It hasn't been released yet.

Me: Can I get a copy of the report?

Nemazie: It's going to be released as part of a larger report by the governor later this month.

Me: What if I officially submit a request for the report under Maryland's Public Information Act?

Nemazie: Well, chances are that by the time the 30 days are up that we have to comply with the records request, the governor will have already released the report.

Me: So, you're telling me that you are going to run out the clock on the records request so that the rest of the public cannot see it until the governor officially releases it?

Nemazie: Something along the lines of "I'll have to check into it…"

I subsequently submitted a formal request for a copy of the report:

Please provide for me the most up-to-date version of the report that you, or an appropriate person at UMCES, can access. I prefer an electronic version of the report, emailed if possible, which should enable a rapid fulfillment of my request. If that is not the case please notify me as soon as possible and please include an explanation as to why the report cannot be provided quickly.

As I was writing this post I received this response from Nemazie:

Paul, this e-mail is to confirm that UMCES has received your request.  We will follow Maryland State Law in providing you a response.

In other words, look for the state to exhaust the full, legally-allowed 30 days before providing a copy of the report that undoubtedly is easily accessible in PDF or Word form and is a public document. You need not look very far to figure out that Maryland state government workers believe they exist not to serve the public, but instead to unnecessarily delay, obfuscate and release information on their own terms.

As for Boesch, this new report is totally in his alarmism character as explained by Red Maryland blogger friend Mark Newgent last October:

Boesch says further, “It is time to take swift and direct action to solve our climate crisis. We have lost much time debating its existence while the scientific evidence and consensus has grown ever stronger.” Boesch has created a gimpy straw man here. No serious global warming skeptic has denied that the earth is in a warming period. In reality, skeptics contest the nature and causes of global warming and the efficacy of the policy prescriptions of alarmists like Al Gore.

What is really at stake here is money, as in federal grant money. Thus the impetus for Boesch doing the Al Gore impersonation, labeling the situation a “crisis” and calling for swift action.

Since 2000, UMCES has received $65,849,037 in federal grant money.
Here are the numbers per year:
2000- $8,831,655
2001- $8,317,034
2002- $10,215,781
2003- $11,873,279
2004- $10,627,340
2005- $12,055,985
2006 -$3,927,963 (data available for 2006 3Q only)

UMCES funding increased 37% between 2000 and 2005 (last year for full data), which neatly corresponds with the advent of global warming alarmism. Adding global warming to the list of the Chesapeake Bay’s woes allows Boesch to expand his budget and operations.

 

 

Why Enviro-reporters Likely Ignore Stories About Economic Impacts

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on July 31, 2008

in Blog

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The answer — which is that they don't understand economics — is revealed in a blog post by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Lisa Stiffler. Her report explains a review by the Beacon Hill Institute (co-sponsored by the Washington Policy Center) of the state's Climate Advisory Team recommendations to raise the costs of energy so high that people will want to move their tailpipe emissions to other countries.

That was a joke – the tailpipe emissions part.

Anyway, the BHI study is similar to ones they've done for other states where the economic analyses of costs associated with climate commissions' recommendations are severely underestimated. In Washington, BHI found among other things that the Climate Advisory Team "misinterprets costs as benefits." And then there is this revelation from reporter Stiffler:

For example, jobs are credited as a benefit, but the reviewers said this is actually a cost. This sort of confuses me as I thought job creation was generally a positive step.

Of course it is "a positive step" in the backwards world of journalism, where jobs digging holes for no apparent reason are considered productive.

 

Al Gore, Prohibitionist

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on July 18, 2008

in Blog

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Economist friend Dr. David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute based at Suffolk University in Boston, had this to say yesterday in response to Al Gore's speech on going 100-percent to renewable sources for energy generation:

"Al Gore wants to be Rachel Carson but has revealed himself to be Carrie Nation. He talks about protecting the environment, when all the while he really just wants to banish fossil fuels from the marketplace.

"There is no better example of his prohibitionist mentality than his recent demand that the United States produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years. Only about 30 percent of our electricity currently comes from these sources. The question is what will happen to the fossil fuels that are used to make the remaining 70 percent, once those fuels are no longer used to produce electricity. The answer is that they will find their way to the market place to be used, as they are now, to produce energy, whether in the United States or abroad.

"A “strategic initiative” that is aimed at substituting alternative fuels for fossil fuels in the production of one kind of energy is doomed to failure unless it somehow eliminates the value of using the same fossil fuels to produce other kinds of energy. If Mr. Gore really wants to spur the United States and other countries to use alternative fuels to produce electricity or any kind of energy, he should just sponsor legislation to prohibit the use of fossil fuels. Otherwise, he is just blowing smoke."

Beacon Hill has weighed in on the absurd economic claims promoted by various state climate commissions.

Renewable Portfolio Standards: Another Hidden Tax

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on July 14, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Renewable portfolio standards that have passed in several states (and promoted by many other state climate commissions) are nothing more than another hidden energy tax (like cap-and-trade). That is no better illustrated than in a Raleigh News & Observer article today, which explains how Progress Energy is about to go to battle with North Carolina's Utilities Commission in order to raise rates so it can pay for its (state-required 12.5 percent minimum) renewable-sourced energy generation:

Progress Energy is ready to start charging customers extra to tap solar power and other renewable resources, but the power company is facing criticism that its proposed charges favor energy hogs.

The two sides will get a hearing today before the N.C. Utilities Commission, which will decide whether the Raleigh-based utility's request is reasonable. The hearing is the first public debate on how best to pay for the alternative energy that utilities must tap to meet a new state law.

Progress wants to charge households 46 cents a month, businesses $2.33 a month and industrial customers $23.38 a month. If approved, the new charges would go into effect in December.

Meanwhile environmental extremists are doing everything they can to kill a new Duke Energy coal-fired power plant that just obtained air quality permits. Unrelenting court battles are their strategy.

If renewables are such a great source of power that can replace fossil fuels, why the need to raise monthly electric rates? Why the need for massive subsidies? Oh, that's right — it's for all those great new "green" jobs!

No Hot Air Balloon at Gore’s Place

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 20, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Americans for Prosperity has been conducting a state-by-state "Hot Air Tour" to draw attention to the dramatic economic harm that would be caused by global warming alarmists' "solutions." Today they were scheduled to launch their attention-getting hot-air balloon over Al Gore's home near Nashville, after getting their permits all lined up, but I just got this message from AFP director of policy Phil Kerpen:

The Nashville Parks Department is denying us permission to launch the balloon, citing the fact that our permit says balloon rides but not specifically the word "launch."  This despite the fact that we have explained to them on the phone multiple times our precise flight plan and before today there was no indication that there was a problem or any defect in our permit.  Clearly, Gore is calling in favors to stop the embarrassing visual and negative coverage surrounding our event and ratcheting up the beating he is taking over his home energy use.

Yes, clearly this would represent too much embarrassment in one week for the former veep.

UPDATE 3:30 p.m.: From Phil Kerpen, and AFP's blog,

UPDATE 3:00 pm Eastern time: Roy Wilson at the  Nashville Parks Department must not have liked our earlier post, since he  just completely revoked our permit — even though his department's own  rules state that he can't do that unless we break a law or one of the  department's rules, which we haven't done and have no intention of  doing.  Then he hung up on our legal counsel.   In the meantime, good news to report — we've secured a private  location for this afternoon's event.  We'll be in a field at the  corner of Sneed and Vaughn Roads — just about a mile and a half from the original event location.

Sounds like lawsuit potential. Meanwhile, Nashville Parks Dept. Contact info:

http://www.nashville.gov/parks/administration.htm

Centennial Park Office
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 862-8400
Fax: (615) 862-8414

UPDATE 4:00 P.M.:

Per a phone conversation I had with AFP's Phil Kerpen, he explained that AFP acknowledged a defect in the permit application to Nashville Parks Dept. So AFP agreed to limit its activity in the park to what it outlined in its application, not fully launch a hot-air balloon, and keep it to tethered rides, and let the event go on. That was not good enough for the Parks Dept., who refused to permit AFP at all to hold an event, and demanded that they leave. Kerpen said the Parks Dept. knew all along what AFP was going to do, to the point that they were asking for insurance information for the balloon rides yesterday afternoon.

Why? Curt Garrigan of the Nashville Parks Dept. told me, "they did not submit an application for the event that was accurate. For that reason we did not issue a permit for the event." So I asked him, why not still issue the permit if they were willing to comply with the guidelines they laid out in their application. Garrigan's answer: "They sent out a media release to the public that said they were launching from that site."

So, apparently the Parks Dept. refused to allow AFP to hold any event at all based upon what they perceived to be public deception. Great public servants at work here: upending a well-publicized event in which they knew all the details, but dismissed on a technicality.

Cross-posted at American Spectator.

Horserace Ad Absurdum

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 18, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

That the presidential race inhabits every nook and cranny of the mind of cable television news hosts became ridiculously clear in a Wolf Blitzer interview with Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly:

Blitzer: You know you have — you and ExxonMobil, the Big Oil companies –have a huge public relations problem. In all the recent polls, when the American public is asked, who do you blame for these huge gas prices at the pump, they — more than any other single source — they blame Big Oil. They blame you. What's going on?…

Blitzer: There's other blame, but more than any other single source, they blame Big Oil….

Blitzer: Because you have had record profits, right?

O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits.

Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before….

Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president?…

Blitzer: So, I guess, given the stark difference when it comes to Big Oil between Obama and McCain — let me rephrase the question — do you want McCain to be elected?

Talk about obsessed — and can someone please tell me how that's "rephrasing the question?!"

If you read the whole interview, CNN's iReporters show themselves to be better questioners than the Blitzer.

Nelson Should Be Chillin’ About the Offshore Drillin’

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 18, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

As Drudge notes today, $4-per-gallon-(plus!) gasoline has put environmentalists on their heels (it's the economy, stupids!), with arguments from their apologists getting ever sillier:

John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, opposed new offshore drilling in his 2000 presidential campaign. He said Tuesday that he now supported lifting the long-standing ban.

"I believe it is time for federal government to lift these restrictions and put our own reserves to use," the Arizona senator said in a Houston speech on energy security…. 

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) decried McCain's stance. "He ought to know he'd ruin Florida's $65-billion tourism economy by allowing oil rigs off the coast."

Dear Senator: Do the math. If folks can't afford the fuel (airline tickets, etc.) it takes to travel to the Sunshine State or other like places, you aren't going to have a "tourism economy."

 

Gore Still Sucking Up the Energy

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 17, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Our friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research have been looking at Al Gore's personal residential energy consumption again, and things are only getting more embarrassing for the world's foremost global warming alarmist:

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

 

Competition for Polysilicon

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 17, 2008

in Blog

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

My colleague at the John Locke Foundation, Geoff Lawrence, in a blog post today looks at economic modeling for costs of solar power as North Carolina lawmakers last year were putting together a renewable portfolio standard law for the state's utilities. His analysis shows that modelers were way off:

The model they developed included scenarios in which the price of solar power (the most expensive form of electricity production) declined by 25, 50, and 75 percent by year 2021.

These projections likely made the solar set-aside more palatable to consumer groups. However, they have little basis in reality. The primary chemical input into production of solar panels is polysilicon – the same chemical that is used to manufacture microprocessors.

Limited supplies of this chemical are resulting in a global shortage as more of the chemical is demanded for solar panel production. As a result, the price has increased from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram over the past five years and continues to rise. The solar panel industry has grown into a major competitor with microprocessor manufacturers for this resource and is starting to bid polysilicon away from microprocessor manufacturers. Government mandates for solar power will undoubtedly cause this trend to accelerate.

These guys were about as good as all those global warming modelers!

 

What About the Other Greenhouse Gas?

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on June 16, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Being the non-egghead, borderline C-minus high school science student that I was, I inquired with a few scientist acquaintances about the logic — as far as greenhouse gas emissions and effect on global warming goes — that Honda's new hydro-powered car would improve matters. The question: If the only emission from Honda’s new hydrogen vehicle is steam, and water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas, isn’t that making the greenhouse effect worse? Or am I missing something?

The two answers I received:

Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at University of Alabama at Huntsville: "The big difference is that extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer (many years) than extra water vapor (days)…the extra water vapor won’t accumulate the way CO2 does. But I predict that a city filled with hydrogen fueled vehicles on a hot summer day is going to get pretty unbearable."

Dr. Howard Hayden, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Connecticut: "About two years ago, NASA launched the AQUA satellite, whose purpose is to start to begin initiating (note the redundancy for emphasis) some preliminary studies of the water cycle. In other words, it is an admission that nobody on the planet has the vaguest understanding of the most important greenhouse agent. (H2O is not always gaseous, and, aside from being a greenhouse gas, is a major player in heat transport.)

But wait! There's more! What is the source of the hydrogen? Commercially, the biggest source is methane (CH4), with energy supplied by combustion."

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →