Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

More Campaigns, More Stories

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on April 1, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

USA Today has a predictably alarming story today by incurious press release rewriter Doyle Rice about the impending devastating effects on the health of Americans, based on "a new campaign announced by the American Public Health Association." I guess this has progressed so far that all that is required to capture the media's attention is for someone to announce a "campaign" (see previous Horner posts on Al Gore) — or in this case with APHA's own words, a "blueprint." The article has the disease and death forecast, while dutiful Doyle cites these experts:

In a telephone conference, report contributor Edward Maibach of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said, "Climate change is affecting our health now and will more in the future…."

 

"These are all problems we have today, but they will intensify with climate change," said blueprint lead author Jonathan Patz of the University of Wisconsin.

Maibach is apparently a favorite in the USA Today environmental reporters' Rolodexes, while Patz toils within his university's Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and Global Environment, which "is supported by government research grants, corporate gifts, and private funds." Last year the Nelson Institute reported nearly $7.5 million in income, including $2.1 million from the state and $3.6 million in federal grants. Of that, $1.6 million fed into the CSAGE. That keeps those Madison profs happy.

Oh, and Patz is "a Lead Author on IPCC reports for 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2007, (and) shares in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore." Just tryin' to help ya finish your job, Doyle.

Chelsea Needs a History Lesson

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on April 1, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Speaking at North Carolina State University yesterday, Chelsea Clinton misremembered (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt) her father's role (thanks Iain) in declining to send the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification, as the Associated Press reports:

Clinton told about 250 people at N.C. State that her mother, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, would work to repair the nation's reputation abroad.

"I think the world will breathe a sigh of relief when this president is gone," Clinton said, criticizing Bush for pulling out of various accordings (sic), including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Of course if the AP reporter was on the ball, she would have corrected the record.

 

 

Update on Kansas Climate Commission

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

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

As I reported 10 days ago, Kansas's Kathleen Sebelius is the most recent state executive to create a state global warming commission — called the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group — and like most other states hired the Center for Climate Strategies to manage the thing. Unfortunately also like a few of the states (Iowa, Maryland, South Carolina), Kansas apparently has no contract with CCS to create its government-"sponsored" climate advisory policy. Instead CCS and the commission will have no accountability to taxpayers and instead will be beholden to those who fund it: global warming alarmists like the Energy Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation. In fact, the presence of Sandler money shows Kansas to be the first state in which clearly political leftist money is paying for what is supposed to be an "objective" policy development process.

Just a little while ago I called a couple of attorneys with the state to verify a few things. Dennis Highberger, with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, told me that his agency has a contract with CCS to do its greenhouse gas emissions inventory, but no agreement to run the governor's commission. He referred me to Gov. Sebelius's office.

So then I called Sally Howard, her chief counsel, who informed me that the governor's office had no contract with CCS either. When I told her that KDHE said they had no contract and that it appears there is no contract with the state, she said she found that hard to believe. I told her that's the case with other states as well. What's the need for a contract when the state isn't paying anything, right?

Anyway, I did ask if the state budgeted anything for the commission — after all, at least a few bureaucrats are going to have to dedicate some time to this dog-and-pony show. She was unaware of any dedicated budget for the project, so if taxpayers want to know the amount of public employees' time devoted to the commission, they're out of luck.

Do Not Sweep, Vacuum or Inhale

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

in Blog

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Not a whole lot of news on compact fluorescent bulbs, but the absolute impracticality of them is illustrated in a consumer advisory piece in yesterday's News & Observer of Raleigh. A sampling:

Because they contain trace elements of mercury, disposing of the lights or cleaning up a broken one is not a simple proposition…

 

Americans discard an estimated 670 million mercury-containing bulbs a year, potentially releasing as much as four tons of mercury into the environment each year….

Disposal options: Don't throw fluorescents in the trash. The light will break and release mercury. In a landfill, it could contaminate the ground. If you must throw a burned-out CFL into the trash, seal it first in two plastic bags to prevent leakage.

The preferred method is to take CFLs to a recycling facility or hazardous waste facility.

In the Triangle, you can take them to North Wake Household Hazardous Waste Collection off Durant Road in Raleigh or South Wake Solid Waste Management Facility off N.C. 55 in Apex….(both these locations are more than a half-hour from where I live)

Cleanup: If a CFL breaks, air out the room for at least 15 minutes. Shut off the central air conditioning or heating and close all doors so that mercury does not spread through the house.

Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar or sealed plastic bag. Use duct or other adhesive tape to clean up any remaining powder. Clean the area with damp paper towels and dispose of the towels in a jar or bag.

CFL don'ts: Do not use a vacuum cleaner: It will disperse the mercury particles. Never use a broom to clean up mercury. That also spreads mercury particles.

If the mercury gets on your clothes, seal the clothes in plastic and discard or take to a hazardous waste facility.

But besides all that, they're really worth it!

No Way to Reduce Emissions in Norway

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on March 22, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Pledges are nice for organizations like public television and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, but until the promises are actually fulfilled with checks, they are meaningless.

The global warming panic community is beginning to learn this lesson the hard way, as the New York Times reports that Norway's promise to be "carbon neutral" by 2030 is empty:

But as the details of the plan have emerged, environmental groups and politicians — who applaud Norway’s impulse — say the feat relies too heavily on sleight-of-hand accounting and huge donations to environmental projects abroad (rent-seeking, anyone?), rather than meaningful emissions reductions.

 

That criticism has not only set off anguished soul-searching here, but may also come as a cold slap to the many countries, companies, cities and universities that have lined up to replicate Norway’s example of becoming carbon neutral — with an environmental balance sheet showing that they absorb as much carbon dioxide as they emit.

Reminds me of a quote from Tad Aburn, director of the Air and Radiation Management Division in the Maryland Department of the Environment, after his state's climate commission announced they had similar carbon-reduction aspirations (90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050): "“If you asked me right now, how are you going to do it? What exactly are you going to do? The answer is, I don’t know.”

Soros Buddy Funding Center for Climate Strategies

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on March 21, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

William just summarized it, but today Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius just executed the broken-legged horse: she vetoed the bill that would allow two coal-fired power plants to be built in the state. Legislators tried to create a new law that would have overridden a ruling by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to deny air permits for the plants. The Senate has enough votes to override the veto, but the House does not, so lawmakers I spoke to earlier this week expect the veto to stand.

But what's of greater interest is that Sebelius, simultaneous with the veto, issued an executive order creating the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group. This is another one of those state global warming commissions, and as I reported earlier this week, they have hired the Center for Climate Strategies to manage their policy development process. I've reported ad nauseum that CCS's work in dozens of states is funded mostly by global warming alarmists like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Energy Foundation, but in Kansas there is a new multi-million dollar resource paying the bill: the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation.

Who else has Sandler supported? They were instrumental in joining George Soros to create the Center for American Progress and Democracy Alliance. Gave nice contributions to ACORN, Oceana, and Environmental Defense too. For the first time in watching the maneuvers of CCS, we've discovered a bond not only to the environmental left, but the explicitly political activist left as well.

UPDATE 3:05 p.m.:

From the last 3 tax returns (tax years 2003-2005) available on Guidestar, other contributions (cumulative for the period) of note made by the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation (the Sandlers owned Golden West Financial until they sold to Wachovia):

ACLU: $6.5 million

American Institute for Social Justice: $3.2 million

Center for American Progress: $6.7 million

Human Rights Watch: $7 million

Natural Resources Defense Council: $350,000

Sierra Club Foundation: $500,000

Media Matters of America: $100,000

Oceana: $2.5 million

People for the American Way Foundation: $150,000

Sojourners: $219,000

Pew Charitable Trusts: $250,000

Also included are a number of contributions for asthma research and Jewish support organizations.

Transportation and Electricity Have All the Fun

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

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

To date the attorneys, regulators and bureaucrats having the most fun and earning the most money from the global warming mytheria have been those involved in utilities and transportation, and frankly, the ones who deal with land use planning are a little miffed and feeling kind of left behind.

Well, their time is now. Coming along on May 5 & 6 is a “comprehensive conference” in Tarrytown, NY, titled, “Climate Change and Land Use: Global warming impacts on land use planning and project approvals,” described thusly:

California, Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts have all passed legislation seeking to regulate GHG emissions in private development and environmentally sensitive projects through their environmental review process. California has passed a landmark statute, AB 32, which requires local governments to consider global warming impacts as part of their planning processes. The settlement agreement between the state and San Bernardino County sheds some light on how the state plans to implement that policy. There is a growing list of other pioneering efforts by local governments that we will address.

For this first-of-its-kind conference, we have assembled experts from early adopter jurisdictions around the country, as well as leading New York land use professionals, to provide insights for the local governments attorneys, planners, consultants and developers. Hear about the factors that go into a successful regulatory program, the appropriate scope of local review in the Hudson River Valley and surrounding regions, and the best way for developers to respond to the concerns leading to these new regulations.

Attorneys, local governments attorneys, planners, engineers, consultants and developers are beckoned to attend and learn how the rent seeking is done.

 

A Consultancy Born from Advocacy

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

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The close relationship between the advocacy-oriented Pennsylvania Environmental Council and the Center for Climate Strategies, which has managed global warming commissions (it claims as an “objective consultant”) for governors in several states, has been well established. Statements from their 2006 Form 990 tax return explains that PEC formed Enterprising Environmental Solutions, Inc. (where CCS is housed) to “carry out their non-regulatory agenda.” The tax return also explains, “EESI has its own board of directors and is controlled by PEC, since PEC is the only member of EESI.” Also, EESI/CCS exists to “advance, support and promote the purposes of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council….”

Now here’s the latest revelation uncovered in e-mail correspondence obtained from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which was sent by Kimberlea Konowitch, who is identified as the senior accountant for EESI/CCS. Her email address, like others who handle administrative work for EESI/CCS, is identified by a pecpa.org domain. But here’s the kicker, in your average legal disclaimer (“only intended for the recipient,” blah, blah…) that you find at the end of emails: “The Pennsylvania Environmental Council and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.”

So now EESI/CCS is recognized as an official subsidiary of PEC. And the continued insistence by CCS executive director Tom Peterson that advocates for PEC don’t work on these state projects, and that EESI/CCS does not have an advocacy history, that they are objective, becomes more laughable each time he repeats it. CCS’s only reason for existing is to promote PEC’s agenda.

While we’re talking about Kansas: CCS has been hired by KDHE to do its greenhouse gas emissions inventory, which always precedes the creation of a climate commission in a state and then the hiring of CCS to run the process. In a document that justifies hiring CCS without going through a competitive bidding process, they are praised for having a “proven track record” and are described as “an objective facilitator and expert party.” That’s true if your greatest passion is reducing greenhouse gas emissions without concern for destroying the economy.
 

The False IPCC Consensus of Experts

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

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Mark Newgent, who blogs regularly at Red Maryland and has written extensively on Maryland's climate change commission and the work of the Center for Climate Strategies there, writes in the Baltimore Examiner about the phony scientific consensus of the IPCC panel that alarmists incessantly invoke when defending their indefensible panic attacks:

What goes unmentioned is the fact that the IPCC is a political body. Skeptics are critical of the IPCC because alarmists — even though they masquerade their political motivations in sanctimonious moral language — tout this nonexistent consensus in their patently political quest for massive government interventions into the economy and private life.

Lack of Consensus

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

in Science

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Amazing — a new study released in the journal Science claims that everything we always understood about the age of the Grand Canyon was wrong. Turns out that rather than being 5 or 6 million years old, the new report says it is more like 17 million years old:

Not so fast, said Joel Pederson, a geomorphologist at Utah State University who has spent his career studying the Grand Canyon. He said the estimated age of 5 million to 6 million years is based on abundant evidence amassed by scientists over many decades. Seventeen million is impossible, he said, because there is no evidence of a large quantity of sediment flowing out of a canyon before 6 million years ago.

 

"They clearly have not taken the time to be rigorous and actually understand the regional geography," Pederson said.

Sound familiar? Won't be long before the paradigm-changing geologists are called deniers and banished from any further publication in established science journals. Let the mock and ridicule begin!

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →