Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Montana Lawmakers Don’t Like Climate Commission’s Ideas

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 13, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Lawmakers in Montana have been reviewing the recommendations that came out of the state's Climate Change Advisory Committee — nudged along by the Center for Climate Strategies — and for the most part are taking a pass:

The legislative Environmental Quality Council agreed to tackle legislation that promotes, with minimal expenditure, the use of local food, recycling and energy efficiency programs.

 

The decision follows previous meetings where the panel carved out recommendations that failed to gather the bipartisan support needed to adopt committee legislation.

The committee is now working with a pared down list of about a dozen broad areas for them to consider tackling – far fewer than the 54 recommendations that came from the governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee. Gone are items dealing directly with carbon emissions, standards on cars and off-road vehicles, and other ideas that scored lower in a public survey sought by the panel.

In other words, like the general public, Montana legislators are only willing to address the global warming crisis as long as it won't cost anything.

 

Iowa: It Means Only One Thing

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 12, 2008

in Science

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Nice to see Ryan Radia's piece in the Des Moines Register today after yesterday's abominable piece reporting on what global climate change "means to Iowa." As usual the article ignores real global trends (no temp increase in last 10 years; oceans not warming; Antarctic sea ice increase; record cold winter; etc.) and instead regurgitates the IPCC Summary schtick and alarm-sounding from the Center for Climate Strategies, U. of Iowa prof Jerald Schnoor, and Iowa State U. global warming studier Eugene Takle.

"People are more worried," Takle was quoted without reporter curiousity or devil's advocacy.

Anyway, according to the Register, what does this all "mean to Iowa?" Let us count the "coulds," "ifs," "likely's," and "mights:"

"If we do this smart, we will create green jobs, improving the economy and cutting greenhouse gases," Schnoor said…

Scientists have noted for years that more carbon dioxide, which feeds plants, will likely mean booming crop yields. Takle said the longer period between the spring thaw and the return of frost in winter could mean longer growing seasons. The changes could open the door for farmers to grow two, maybe even three, crops a season, Takle said…But weather and climate changes could dampen the gains…For example, crop yields could drop 40 percent by 2100 because of higher levels of ground-level ozone…

Moisture in the air will likely increase because water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Over time, this results in higher temperatures day and night….

Warming might make water shortages a bigger issue in Iowa, where a boom in ethanol plants and hog confinements have already strained supplies….

Milder temperatures could mean savings on home-heating bills, Takle said. It also could provide more groundwater recharge in periods of fast snowmelts. On the down side, look for more freeze-thaw cycles, damaging roads and bridges and altering growing seasons…

Deer, skunks and raccoons could benefit from a smorgasbord of new plant growth in places, but they might spread rabies and other diseases farther….

Of course, sprinkled about are claims made with more certainty, all based upon computer models fed by who-knows-what kind of data. Meanwhile the Register clings to only their kind of experts and ignores the respected Joe D'Aleo– and William Gray-types within meteorology and atmospheric science.

 

Wealth Protects Better Against Natural Disasters

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 8, 2008

in Blog

From The Locker Room:

If the same category four cyclone (or "hurricane" in the Atlantic) hit an industrialized country, the storm would have been harmful but not even remotely close to the devastation that exists today in Myanmar.

This tragedy doesn't provide ammunition for global warming (category four cyclones aren't unique), but for the need for countries and their citizens to develop better infrastructure, build better buildings, have better emergency services, etc.

The only way these changes will happen is if poor countries are able to generate the wealth necessary to make the changes. The only way for the U.S. to better protect itself against hurricanes is to ensure that we continue to be a wealthy country.

Al and friends instead want to tell third world countries that the single most critical factor to develop wealth, low-cost energy, should be prohibited. They want to adopt policies that would keep the poor countries poor and put wealthy countries on a path to poverty.

The Beacon Hill Institute examined the impact that policies being considered by the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change would have on North Carolina. Please recognize that these policies wouldn't even come close to what the zealots want in terms of reductions in carbon dioxide. Policies include a cap and trade program, taxes on driving, taxes on electricity use, etc.

From the press release: “By 2011, the state would shed more than 33,000 jobs,” according to the report from the Beacon Hill Institute, the research arm of the economics department at Boston’s Suffolk University. “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.”

When the Beacon Hill Instutute presented this data to the Commission, there wasn't a dispute about the numbers. Those trying to argue weren't concerned with the actual loss of jobs and the devastation on the economy, but instead were pointing out that this is a price that needs to be paid.

North Carolina, the U.S. and for that matter the entire globe have to make choices. We can choose to adopt policies that would have no effect (PDF) on temperature and have devastating effects on our economy and our ability to prepare for major storms or we can choose to be sensible and do all we can to ensure that public policy doesn't undermine countries from having the wealth necessary to protect themselves from natural disasters.

I'm inclined to favor the latter option, but that's just me.

TIME-Established Fact

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 7, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

You know your state is in trouble when the chairman of your commission to address the global warming crisis cites one of the newsweaklies as grounds for established scientific fact. That is the case with the University of Iowa's Jerald Schnoor, who chairs the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. He wrote in his environmental science journal in 2006:

In its April 3 special edition, Time magazine has declared it. The debate on global warming is over. And humans are causing it (at least, most of it). Meanwhile, according to a recent poll, 71% of Americans already believe that global warming is occurring. So what has taken the Bush Administration so long? The lack of leadership on climate change and energy policy by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cadre of oil executive cronies borders on malfeasance.

This, again, is from the leader of a so-called study commission that is supposed to be objective in its look at global warming issues — except that, of course, they are not allowed to discuss the science of climate change.

On second thought, I guess that makes him a perfect fit.

Those Windfall CFL Programs

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 7, 2008

Martin Watcher, the marvelous mysterious blogger in Maryland, does the math today on the Public Service Commission's compact fluorescent light bulb program. The upshot is that the major utilities, Baltimore Gas & Electric and Allegany Power, have reaped nearly $1 million per month from the program thanks to surcharges on their customers' bills. From O'Malley Watch:

I need you to follow me on some math. 

Average BGE monthly energy usage: 1386 kWh
Charge per 1000 kWh for light bulb program: $.67
Monthly Charge per customer: 1.386*.67 = $.92
Number of BGE customers: 1.2 million
Monthly income on program for BGE: 1.2 million * .92 = $1,114,316
Number of light bulbs sold per month: 1 million/ 9 months = 111,111 CFLs
Cost of each CFL rebate for BGE = $1.50
Cost per month of the program: 111,111 * $1.50 = $166,666
Overcharge by BGE each month: $1,114,316 – $166,666 = $947,649
Total overcharge of BGE customers: $947649 * 9 months = $8.5 million

That’s right, Martin O’Malley’s handpicked PSC has overcharged BGE customers $8.5 million over the last 9 months because they are pushed this forced participation in a light bulb scam that folks might not even get the rewards of. Western Maryland residents at least got light bulbs out of the deal, but unless someone goes and buys a light bulb, they don’t get anything out of this program. And each month the PSC allows this program to continue unchecked, BGE brings in almost $950,000 more from ratepayers.

Read the whole post if you're at that outrage point in your day.

Hat tip: Mark Newgent.

The Numbers Prove It, if We Could Just Find Them

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 7, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Every Chesser deserves his five minutes of glory in the blogosphere, so here's Uncle Wes with his celebration of Earth Day, Al Gore, and windmills in his best Dave Barry-esque form.

Reporting from his beat in Fredericksburg, Va. 

First it was the Polar Bears…

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 7, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

…now it's the koalas that are threatened. Global warming indiscriminately attacks the cute and cuddly!

Feed Chickens and People, Not Vehicles

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 6, 2008

in Blog

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

As I mentioned in an earlier post, North Carolina's Climate Action Plan Advisory Group enlisted the Energy Center at Appalachian State University to apply its mumbo-jumbo economic analysis model (click on "Ponder presentation") to the recommendations that CAPAG produced. Undoubtedly the global warming believers wanted some public entity to tell them how all their energy tax hike and regulation ideas would improve the economy and create jobs, and the Energy Center delivered. They reported that by 2020, North Carolina would see $2.2 billion in new investment and 32,000 new jobs if all CAPAG's recommendations were implemented.

Focusing on details, the Energy Center was particularly optimistic about CAPAG's biofuel subsidy proposals. A proposal to replace 12.5 percent of the state's petroleum diesel fuel consumption with biodiesel by the year 2020 would yield 661 new jobs and $68 million in annual gross state product. Even more exciting, an ethanol subsidy of 23 cents per gallon, to replace gasoline consumption in the state with ethanol by 25 percent by the year 2025, would create more than 12,000 new jobs and increase gross state product by $4.1 billion.

Someone should have sent that memo to employees at Pilgrim's Pride, who closed a chicken processing plant in North Carolina in March, as well as six distribution sites. The reason?

Chief Executive Clint Rivers placed blame for the industry's trouble on the federal government's "deeply flawed" policy of paying subsidies for using corn to produce ethanol for fuel, which he said would cause food prices to rise further.

"American consumers are only just beginning to feel the impact of sharply higher food prices," as food producers pass along more of their higher costs, Rivers said.

Rivers said the company hasn't been able to raise prices fast enough to cover higher feed costs. He called the current situation facing poultry producers "among the most difficult I have seen during my 27 years in the business."

Apparently the science was settled, but the economics was not.

 

Where’s the Investment Integrity?

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

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

How "rich" it is that 84 percent of the adult descendants of John D. Rockefeller should pressure ExxonMobil into diversifying its interests into alternative energy. The company has rewarded its investors (the Standard Oil family beneficiaries included) handsomely, but as the Wall Street Journal notes, "The well-to-do Rockefellers have embraced the eco-enthusiasms of the day, and perhaps for some of them this is one way of assuaging any guilt over a multibillion-dollar fortune built on carbon." It was Neva Rockefeller Goodwin at the podium last week who said, "As the oldest continuous shareholders of the Exxon Mobil corporation, we almost define the long-term investors."

Considering all the anti-carbon activities that the Rockefellers have invested in, you'd think they would divest themselves of theoretically unprincipled corporations like ExxonMobil a long time ago. Of course, you'd be wrong, as it's hard to part with the "second-largest quarterly profit in U.S. corporate history."

Yet the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (Vice Chairman: Neva) and Rockefeller Family Fund are pushing their agenda in every way imaginable. I've followed the work of RBF for quite a while as they have provided at least $1.5 million in funding for the Center for Climate Strategies, who advance anti-carbon policies in the states through state-created global warming commissions. The millions of dollars they funnel to other groups with similar goals is staggering.

The back pockets of "big oil," indeed.

Jobs Absurdity in North Carolina

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 2, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

In North Carolina, where the John Locke Foundation (my former employer) has endeavored to expose the influence of the Center for Climate Strategies upon the state's Climate Action Plan Advisory Group, an outside group enlisted by CCS has seriously backpedaled on ludicrous claims of great economic benefits that would result from CAPAG's recommendations. My Locke colleague Roy Cordato explains:

“Six months ago, the (Appalachian State University) Energy Center trumpeted its claims that policies to cut carbon dioxide emissions in North Carolina would add more than 325,000 jobs and $20 billion to the state’s economy by 2020,” said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. “Now the same ASU team has snuck out a new report that drops that estimate to 32,000 jobs and $2.2 billion in gross state product.”

“That’s not just a rounding error,” Cordato added. “That’s a major mistake that should call into question the researchers’ competence. No serious scholar would put out research that makes a mistake that large.”

Of course, it was the earliest boast (see "Ponder presentation") that got the greater attention of the local media, while the new, revised figures ("Ponder presentation" again) were ignored.

That CCS contracted out to the Energy Center in the first place was a recognition that they had to shore up their credibility on the economics claims they were making. Only who did they get to do the research? A fellow named David Ponder, who is a graduate assistant in the Department of Political Science at Appalachian State. Further evidence of CCS's embarrassment over economic ignorance is that they have overhauled their personnel page on their Web site to emphasize economics credentials. Amusingly updated on executive director Tom Peterson's bio are these new inclusions:

He holds a B.S. in Biology with a concentration in Economics from the College of William and Mary…

He also has a Master's degree in Environmental Management with a concentration in Natural Resource Economics and Policy from Duke University…

Meanwhile, the Beacon Hill Institute (well-qualified economists all) has produced its own analysis of CAPAG's recommendations, and not surprisingly they arrive at far different conclusions from the poli-sci grad student:

“By 2011, the state would shed more than 33,000 jobs,” according to the report from the Beacon Hill Institute, the research arm of the economics department at Boston’s Suffolk University. “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.”

“The negative economic effects would spill over into state and local tax collections,” the report adds. “We estimate a loss of $184.6 million in revenues in 2011.”

So now the question for everyone concerned is, who do you believe?

 

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →