Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
That's what describes the bulk of the proposals that are coming out of (mostly gubernatorial) state-level climate commissions these days, as pushed by global warming alarmists and their consultancy vehicle, the Center for Climate Strategies. My John Locke Foundation colleague Daren Bakst has reviewed all 56 recommendations that came out of the commission in North Carolina, the Climate Action Plan Advisory Group, and he analyzes them in a policy report titled, "Taxes, Subsidies and Regulation: A Guide to North Carolina's Proposed Global Warming Policies."
CAPAG’s proposals assume reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will affect climate change, Bakst said. “This assumption should surprise no one who’s skeptical of this process,” he said. “It’s well-established that there is nothing the United States — or an individual state — could do to have any measurable effect on temperature. Rather than admit that fact, CAPAG tries to get around the ‘temperature problem’ by ignoring the goal of reducing temperature. Reducing CO2 becomes the goal, and reducing temperature is simply never mentioned again.”
Again, these commissions are sprouting up in states everywhere, but the outcomes they produce are almost always identical: Anti-freedom, anti-consumer, and pro-government control.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
The Charlotte Observer reports today that Duke Energy spent more money last year on lobbying efforts than it ever has at the federal level, mostly to address global warming legislation:
Several carbon dioxide bills that could cost utilities are pending. And Duke and other power companies helped stall measures last year that would force utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as the sun and wind. That electricity is more expensive to produce.
Extra costs from regulation are generally passed on to ratepayers, which utilities say is bad for business….
Duke, the nation's third largest consumer of coal, reported lobbying lawmakers on 31 separate bills last year, 19 of which deal with global warming and ways to battle it.
However, it appears the environmentalists may feel they are losing traction on climate change and may be changing their tactics. Back to mercury, folks!
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Pat Michaels today at American Spectator Online explains how legislators in Kansas thwarted the imposition of a hidden CO2 tax upon utilities, but that the attempt is likely to be replicated in many other states:
A CO2 tax will largely be levied on utilities that exceed modest limits on their carbon dioxide effluent, so consumers won't "see" it — except in their electric bills. They'll send in their monthly checks, quite unaware that the new tax revenues are likely to be shoved into a slush fund for solar energy, windmills, biodiesel, ethanol and other green gadgetry boondoggles.
As Pat goes on to write, such measures will do nothing to affect the climate.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
I've almost made it home from a long trip which included a stop in Denver earlier this week, where Gov. Bill Ritter has produced an energy- and economy-sapping plan, produced largely by his cabinet-level climate czar, Heidi Van Genderen. She is the former Wirth Chair in Environmental and Community Development Policy (look who's sitting in it now) at the University of Colorado at Denver, but unlike most gubernatorial advisors, she is not paid for by taxpayers. Instead her position, for what looks like a two-year period (at $80,000 per year unless some bonuses are coming), was paid for by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which has promised the governor $400,000 over two years to help push their global warming agenda. The money also funds another position on energy policy.
The Center for Climate Strategies worked a little differently in Colorado than in other states. Instead of being hired directly by the executive branch like every other state has, instead CCS worked through the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to further their greenhouse gas reduction proposals. The vehicle was different, but the results were the same as everywhere else, and the plan looks remarkably similar to the Van Genderen-led action plan issued in Gov. Ritter's name.
I discussed it on the Independence Institute's public affairs program Independent Thinking:
Put Down the "Cool-aid"
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
I'm in Milwaukee, where I spent time with a lot of climate atheists at Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin's Defending the American Dream Summit yesterday. I presented on a panel with AFP's Phil Kerpen (based in DC) and Wisconsin State Rep. Jim Ott, who was a television meteorologist here for about 30 years.
As the snow blew outside causing near-whiteout conditions, I put up a quote on PowerPoint from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle in which he said, "Failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could raise Wisconsin temperatures…," which prompted an immediate cheer. Right now it is 5 degrees below zero outside with a wind chill of -38.
Pretty soon I will try to go out and do my emitting part as I have to drive to the airport. I'm not looking forward to filling up the gas tank.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Here in Minnesota, where I’ve been the last two days talking about the state’s Climate Change Advisory Group and explaining what can be expected in their recommendations, the Center for Climate Strategies has not been able to push all their greenhouse gas-reduction ideas as robustly as they have been able to in most other states. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the one who created the commission and brought CCS on board, and politically has to be sensitive to the elements of his support who actually care about the state’s people and their economy.
That’s not to say the MCCAG’s report itself won’t be filled with the usual CCS pap, like cap-and-trade, smart growth-based land use regulations, and “climate-friendly transportation pricing.” It’s just that Pawlenty already is showing he is not willing to go as far as CCS and the commission would like. For example, the MCCAG approved a plan to reduce speed limits on highways in the state back down to 55 mph. That was too much for the governor, and he left it out of his preliminary recommendations – which were supposed to largely reflect the will of the MCCAG – that he released on Friday. That report is already being criticized by lefty environmentalists for not being strong enough, which they are right about if they hoped Pawlenty would just rubberstamp and release the findings of the MCCAG.
Also worthy of note, demonstrating that CCS and environmentalists aren't getting everything they want: one of the MCCAG's recommendations is to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power facilities. That is a first (at least as far as I've seen) for any of these state commissions. And you can tell in the language (written by CCS) explaining the recommendations for the MCCAG that they are less than enthusiastic about the idea. Nevertheless, it got through.
So, there are two separate tracks to follow in Minnesota as they prepare to formally release their proposals in the coming weeks or months. First is Pawlenty: how much of the energy cost-raising and property rights-limiting ideas from MCCAG will he embrace as his own, and implement (to the degree he is able) through executive orders? Second is MCCAG: How much will the Democrat-dominated legislature take their recommendations and try to make them law?
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Okay, so it's not a major daily, but it is the newspaper of Maryland's seat of government, The Capital of Annapolis. Pretty fair treatment of the controversy behind the Center for Climate Strategies, which I (and others) have written about ad nauseum on opinion pages, but until now did not get a sniff from reporters. Pamela Wood does a pretty good job summarizing the conflict between the global warming panic-stricken who love CCS's work and those of us who have exposed the group for the alarmist advocates that they are:
The disagreement started with frustration over the commission's interim recommendations in November, to slash carbon-dioxide emissions in the state and promote energy efficiency.
Then, global-warming critics were galled to find out the center is controlled by another group that makes no bones about its environmental advocacy.
Mark Newgent of Baltimore has written extensively about the center and the climate commission on the Red Maryland blog as well as on his personal blog. He said Maryland is getting a raw deal by "essentially farming out its policy discussions to an advocacy group."
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Part of my work with Climate Strategies Watch is to inquire with various states about the status of their processes on global warming policy and to try and determine the nature of their relationship – if any – with the Center for Climate Strategies, an environmental advocacy group disguised as an objective management consultant.
The state of Idaho so far is one that has resisted hiring CCS and has yet to start a climate change commission of its own. But that doesn’t mean CCS has not tried to get its foot in the door, as revealed in an email exchange between executive director Tom Peterson and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality head Toni Hardesty. The excited memo sent by Peterson to Hardesty requires a bit of explanation, though:
Memo: “Toni, we want to congratulate you on the recent Executive Order by Governor (Butch) Otter calling for the development of an Idaho Climate Action Plan and related policies and assessments.”
Translation: “Yes, we love executive orders because it allows CCS to get its foot in the state’s door through its environmental bureaucracy, instead of having to make a case for action based upon valid science and real economics with a bunch of elected legislators.”
Memo: “We would be happy to support you with implementation of these actions through our CCS team. We may also be able to provide significant cost share through our existing base of donors given the importance of Idaho to regional and national management of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Translation: “Please hire us – please? We need to dupe more and more states into getting us to run their climate commissions so our Big Socialist advocacy grant makers will continue to fund us, and I can continue to justify my six-figure salary.”
Memo: “We would be happy to visit you, Governor Otter, and other key parties in Idaho to discuss this approach personally if it would be helpful. We also can provide you a detailed work plan and description of a (sic) Idaho Climate Action Planning process on short turnaround….”
Translation: “We have done this so many times we could do it in our sleep. Don’t sweat it, we know what we’re doing. Just close your eyes and leave the driving to us…."
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Worthy of its own post (I didn't want it to get buried in the last one) is today's column by John Locke Foundation president John Hood, who follows up all the work done by his people and by the Beacon Hill Institute with his own devastating perspective:
Remember when your math teacher required you to show your work? There’s a good reason for it. In this case, thanks to diligent spade work by Carolina Journal and careful analysis by economists at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, it has become glaringly obvious that the “experts” consulted by (North Carolina) officials have no earthly idea what they are talking about….
…When scientists do, indeed, step forward to question the supposed consensus about an impending global catastrophe, the alarmists attempt to assassinate their character or compare them to Flat-Earthers. Only the minority of scientists who subscribe to the entire alarmist agenda are said to be credible.
They say this is science. It is precisely the opposite of science. It allows for no reasonable debate. It asserts the Truth as an article of faith, and treats dissent as heresy.
Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – no matter how much he may squawk. Whenever anyone claims that North Carolina should adopt regulations, taxes, and spending programs to combat global warming, and that the result will boost the economy and make North Carolinians better off in the future, check to see if the speaker is an economist trained to employ mainstream economic science. If not, you are permitted to respond with ridicule and contempt.
It is well worth your time to read the whole thing.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
It’s official: the so-called economic analysis that the Center for Climate Strategies is feeding to state governments is junk, which is what you would expect since their study does not quantify the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and they repeatedly misidentify costs as benefits.
Those are just some of the findings reached by the Beacon Hill Institute, who this week released a peer review study of the methodology used by CCS (and the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group) in producing 56 recommendations for the state to act on reducing CO2 emissions. BHI did the study, in addition to a review of another economic model used by CCS (more garbage in, garbage out) to evaluate job impacts, and an earlier review that scrutinized CCS’s findings in Arizona, at the request of the John Locke Foundation. Here is the sobering assessment by BHI’s PhD economist Ben Powell, who wrote this week’s report:
The 56 global warming policy proposals now under consideration for North Carolina include ideas that would increase taxes, restrict land use, ration energy use, and raise energy costs.
“Surprisingly, the NC-CAPAG report claims that the implementation of these measures would bring ‘significant cost savings for the State’s economy,’” Powell wrote. “The NC-CAPAG report gives the impression that the state policy makers can have their cake and eat it, too, and that North Carolina can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time actually save the economy money. Unfortunately, the seriously flawed nature of the report undermines these conclusions.”
“NC-CAPAG’s cost savings estimates are not just wildly optimistic; they are the product of a purely fictitious analysis,” Powell wrote. “Its cost savings estimates cannot be believed, and it fails to quantify the monetary benefits of reduced carbon emissions. Thus policy makers are left with no basis on which to judge the merits of the NC-CAPAG report’s recommendations for action on the mitigation of emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Finally someone is looking at the real costs (huge) compared to the alleged benefits (unidentified and not quantified) being claimed by the environmental left. Of course, it’s tough to apply statistical analysis when the only goal is to feel good about yourself.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org