Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's secretary of health and environment, Roderick Bremby, said in an Associated Press interview that he based his decision to deny air permits for two coal-fired power plants on last April's Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. It appears that he understands that the court really did not mandate that EPA regulate CO2 emissions (Stevens: ""We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding. . . . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for actions or inaction in the statute."), but merely stated that EPA has the authority to do so should it determine it is an endangerment to public health. But nevertheless he grounded his decision based on the court's ruling, not on anything actually in the state law, the Clean Air Act, or in any EPA decision.

Bremby also said during an interview with The Associated Press that the concerns of eight other states also were important. And, he said, the decision took on a moral dimension as he considered his duty to protect Kansans’ health and the state’s environment.

But Bremby said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was crucial because the state’s air-quality laws are tied to the federal Clean Air Act. Deciding that CO2 wasn’t a factor would have created “a complete disconnect.”

Bremby decided in October to deny an air-quality permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. for the two plants.

“I think it was a typical permitting decision until the Supreme Court decision suggested that CO2 needed to be considered as a pollutant,” Bremby said. “The science was really insufficient for the decision. It was the science coupled with the interpretation of federal law by the Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile Gov. Sebelius plans to veto today a second attempt by the Kansas legislature to pass a law that would allow the new power plants to go forward, and the votes to override fall short by one. Apparently she will do so in North Carolina, where she is campaigning for (a cabinet post?) Barack Obama.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Greenhouse gas emissions are always the focus of the state climate commissions, with the impact on climate assumed and not to be debated. And economic issues are addressed as well, although the standards and principles implemented have been imported from some alternate universe.

But what is not discussed seriously is technological or practical feasibility of many of the recommendations coming from the state panels. A story from Minnesota Public Radio, linked in my post from earlier today, addresses this:

Another group has studied the report closely and warns that some of its projections may be unrealistic. Dr. Peter Reich, a specialist in environmental change and terrestrial ecosystems at the University of Minnesota, researched the potential for carbon capture in the state's soils and plants.

 

Reich says global warming is a serious problem, and we need to take steps to try to ratchet it down. However, he says the report from the Climate Change Advisory Group relies too heavily on forestry and agriculture to reduce carbon emissions.

For example, one recommendation is to restock 8 million acres of forest land — half the forest land in the state, according to Reich. Even if there were enough money and people to do that, Reich says, the result would be less than the report expects.

"Stands are at less than full stocking for a number of very real reasons … they have poor soils in spots, rocky soil, diseases, competition from mature trees," said Reich.

Meaning, he says, that many of the newly planted trees wouldn't grow well enough to hold much carbon. Reich says there are other examples where the report overestimates how much Minnesota's forests and farms can contribute.

"If we put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak — that this is how we're going to make our major changes in next 17 years — that may keep us from being more focused on making the other kinds of changes that we think are actually much more effective, and cost-effective," said Reich.

Another report said "Minnesota's geology is not appropriate for storing carbon dioxide underground."

Curses! Foiled again!!

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Minnesota has developed into the nation’s state-level combat zone on global warming, where groups and individuals have aligned to oppose what their state’s climate commission is trying to sell them. Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who many political observers perceive is angling for the vice presidential nomination, has invested his credibility and stature heavily in the issue, especially as chair of the National Governors Association. The blowback began in February when fellow executives from other states took him behind the woodshed.

The resistance elevated last month when one of the state’s free-market think tanks, the Center of the American Experiment, brought in economist Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation to discuss the staggering costs that would result from federal and state proposals to reduce greenhouse gases.

Yesterday another bomb dropped in St. Paul: a coalition of free-marketers, property rights, social conservatives, state legislators, and disaffected members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group held a press conference at the legislature and released two separate reports criticizing the junk economics, alarmist climate forecasts, and nonexistent feasibility study of the proposals coming from MCCAG. Minnesota Majority, the social conservatives, and the American Property Coalition joined forces to commission the Beacon Hill Institute to critique the MCCAG’s recommendations (PDF). The Minnesota Free Market Institute also did their own study. For once local mainstream media outlets were virtually forced to report that more than just a small, dissenting group of “deniers” or “skeptics” oppose dramatic increases in energy costs that will come from these global warming “solutions.” But the reports also revealed the disingenousness of the MCCAG majority members and its advocates. From the Star-Tribune:

Edward Garvey, director of the state Office of Energy Security and a coordinator of the climate change advisory panel, said the recommendations are intended to be an ongoing dialogue. As such, they couldn't yield a precise price tag, he said.

"The charge is to move thoughtfully, deliberately and incrementally, understand and think through what the next steps are with the knowledge you have," Garvey said.

Similarly, from Minnesota Public Radio:

(MCCAG member J. Drake) Hamilton says the advisory group was never supposed to do a cost-benefit analysis. She says its work was a start, and the Legislature will study it carefully before enacting any of the recommendations.

This is, in abbreviated form, B.S. The process memo that lays out the work of MCCAG and the work of its manager, the Center for Climate Strategies, explains that they were tasked for:

Development and recommendation of a comprehensive set of specific policy recommendations and associated analyses to reduce GHG emissions and enhance energy and economic policy in Minnesota by 2025 and beyond….

Results of MCCAG decisions will include explicit descriptions of policy design parameters and results of economic analysis. Recommendations can include both quantified and non-quantified actions, with emphasis on quantification of GHG reduction potential and cost or cost savings for as many recommendations as possible.

CCS and MCCAG fully intended to give the impression that they gave attention to responsible economic analysis for their proposed measures – hence their claims of “net savings” for some of the ideas and “net costs” for others, without providing any data substantiation for their findings. If they weren’t supposed to yield a “precise price tag,” then why make unproveable assertions that their proposals will only cost the state economy $726 million by 2025, or as CCS boasted in its New Mexico findings, that they would save that state $2 billion? And remember that these are “recommendations” from a so-called objective study commission in order to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emission reductions to save the planet. Anything less than full implementation and it would plunge us further into economic and environmental harm.

Pawlenty cannot be happy that such a significant coalition, many of whom probably help put him in office, are publicly embarrassing him on an issue on which he has based much of his reputation. They should be commended for their courage in bringing reality to a debate which for too long has been owned by the absurd.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Iowa is among the recent states to create a climate change commission, but unlike most other states, the legislature did so by enacting a law. As I’ve reported in the past, most of these state climate commissions are put together by governors via executive order, who then often hire the Center for Climate Strategies (or in the cases of Illinois and Wisconsin, the World Resources Institute) to manage them. CCS, a global warming alarmist advocacy organization, then runs the state climate commissions with firm controls to implement their CO2-reducing agenda.

In Iowa the Climate Change Advisory Council was created when last April Gov. Chet Culver signed into law a bill passed by the Iowa General Assembly, but no money was appropriated to run the commission. Therefore it was incumbent upon the state’s Department of Natural Resources to provide staff support for the panel process, and also to find money to run the commission itself. Both the governor’s people and DNR were aware of CCS, but were not ready to move the process forward for a few months.

The “due diligence” began in earnest in July last year, based on documents obtained from the state, with not-surprising suspects involved in putting key parties together. Michael McGuire, head of strategic development for The Climate Group, introduced CCS’s Tom Peterson to Gov. Culver’s policy liaison, Erin Andrew, via email. The Climate Group, as you might suspect, is an international “nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change.” Here’s how they explain their approach:

The next five years will prove decisive for the world’s climate. It’s a short window of opportunity in which we need nothing less than a revolution: the world must begin to halt the rise in greenhouse gas emissions and move towards new ways of generating and using energy.

Next Bob Mulqueen, Gov. Culver’s policy director, corresponded with Michael Northrop, program director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund ("Earth is running a fever"), the bazillion-dollar alarmists who are CCS’s chief sugar daddy. In a July 31 email Northrop passed along Peterson’s contact information to Mulqueen and helpfully attached a November 2006 Environmental Finance article penned by himself that sung the praises of CCS’s work.

Apparently that wasn’t convincing enough for Mulqueen, who sought out further advice. On September 24 he emailed Howard Learner, executive director of the Midwest-oriented Environmental Law and Policy Center, which “focuses on environmental solutions that can dramatically reduce carbon pollution.” Their Web site alleges that “Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin account for 20 percent of the nation’s carbon pollution, with only 5 percent of the world’s population.” So who better to recommend a global warming policy manager, right? So Mulqueen asked:

“I know that your group retained the World Resources Institute. Others retained the Center for Climate Strategies. I would like your view on WRI’s usefulness, effectiveness. We are trying to figure out 1) how, if we choose a nationally recognized organization, we would possibly pay them since we have no money to do so, 2) whether we would do the data and facilitation in-house. Comments?”

Learner’s response: Let’s talk about this on the phone. Meanwhile Richard Leopold, director of Iowa DNR, and Sharon Tahtinen, a legislative liaison for Iowa DNR, conducted their own searches for funds for the Climate Change Advisory Council. Leopold inquired with the Energy Foundation (and was told “the well is dry”), and recommended looking into the Garfield Foundation (Leopold: “lots of $$$$”) and the Joyce Foundation.

Where did they end up? With that good ol’ standby, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as Northrop guaranteed the funding for CCS in Iowa would be provided.

Post script: In every state where they work, CCS trumpets how transparent their work is, apparently because they post lots of meaningless documents on their state commission Web sites. But that transparency does not extend to disclosure about their budgets or funding sources, and Iowa is the perfect illustration. Early versions of the process memo that establishes ground rules for the ICCAC include a budget chart that shows the cost for Iowa’s commission will be $506,000. But Iowa DNR and CCS would rather keep that to themselves, as one email explained:

“For the public version we place on the Web site for ICCAC the project budget chart on pages 14-15 will be removed.”

I guess it’s good enough for the public to know that there is a budget to address their state’s global warming policy development, and it’s none of their business to know how much it is or who is paying for it.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Richard Anthes of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, writing for the Denver Post (always willing to publish a storyteller), sounds the alarm over diminishing government resources for climate research that "will drop in real terms this year — for the fourth year in a row." What "real terms" are, he does not explain. Nevertheless we are to be disturbed, because:

There is no substitute for computing power to understand and predict weather and climate. Larger and faster computers allow scientists to effectively combine diverse global observations into a meaningful whole, and to make predictions and warnings with increasing accuracy and detail. But many U.S. research and operational climate and weather centers now lag behind their international counterparts in the amount of computing power dedicated to weather and climate modeling.

In the interest of non-disclosure, Mr. (Dr.?) Anthes does not divulge whether he has received federal funds (undoubtedly there is some, if not much) for such research, nor apparently did the Post care to ask. Meanwhile, Cooler Heads friend John Dendahl gets to the heart of the matter:

Garbage in, garbage out, as they say in the computer modeling business. Inadvertently, to be sure, Richard Anthes confirmed for readers of his guest commentary exactly what the global warming scare is all about: research money for his and other related organizations….The garbage in is his introductory statement, claiming it is “clear” that the “major cause” of planet warming “at an unprecedented rate” is human beings. The garbage out is his case for more and faster computers for more exotic models.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

A new article in the journal Science attributes the "worldwide problem" of increased algae blooms in ponds and reservoirs to global warming. The News & Observer of Raleigh reports:

Warmer weather has created longer growing seasons. It has allowed the blue-green algae range to expand from Florida northward throughout the Southeast. When algae blooms die and decompose, they pull oxygen from the water and can cause fish kills. 

"The temperature change is playing into hands of blue-green algae," [Hans] Paerl [of the UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences] said. "We have to be more diligent in reducing nutrients to slow down expansion into lakes that are now amenable to these blooms."

Except the global temperature has not increased for 10 years. What gives?