"IN TIMES LIKE THESE, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these," says Paul Harvey, the legendary radio commentator. A "great transformation [is] taking place around the world…a tectonic power shift…the world is very different," writes Fareed Zakaria in his Post-American World.

Even before debate began on Monday on the first comprehensive climate change bill to reach the Senate floor, the White House said President George W. Bush would veto it in its current form.

This week, the Senate debates America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va). The Lieberman-Warner bill (LW) would restrict energy use to combat global warming. Like global warming itself, the bill has undergone considerable hype and little hard-nosed analysis. Several myths need to be dispelled.

Cap and Destroy

by William Yeatman on June 3, 2008

in Blog

Yesterday the U.S. Senate began what it insists on calling "debate" (more like serial dopey speeches designed for home consumption) on the worst piece of legislation introduced into that body in the new century. Perhaps worse than anything in the last century as well.

With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.

Love for Sale

by William Yeatman on June 3, 2008

Want to see ugly?

Go here, beginning on page 11, and look at the four pages of fine print breaking down the heaps and heaps of lucre being larded out by Lieberman-Warner rationing bill in order to corral special pleader, er, public, support.

We can thank green think tank/pressure group World Resources Institute for for this walk-through of the destination for the trillions this energy tax hike would reap in the name of a warming that even alarmists admitted in Nature magazine is actually cooling and will be for some time…casting the entire premise of the enterprise, very expensive PlayStation scary scenarios, in ever deeper doubt…and through a scheme which no one dares claim would actually do anything about the phenomenon were it before us anyway.

It's comforting to see the Senate spending a week killing this beast. Until it rises again next year, that is, presumably with fewer Senators ready and willing to fight back. I repeat my belief, possibly just wishful thinking, that at some point the public will pay attention.

Next week the U. S. Senate plans to debate the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act (S. 3036), a “cap and trade” scheme that would reduce emissions by increasing the cost of energy. Before the vote, all Senators should analyze a new poll from the National Center for Public Policy Research (a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition) that finds an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose.

The poll found that 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices almost $2.00/gallon by 2030, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation.

More Cap-and-Trade Fine Print   [Chris Horner]

As noted below, the Lieberman-Warner bill sets aside a portion of its receipts to establish a Clean Development Technology Deployment Fund, which supposedly will pay to promote environment-friendly technologies abroad and “provid[e] other forms of technical assistance to facilitate the qualification for, and receipt of, program funding.” In other words, some of the revenues from selling ration coupons, instead of offsetting the bill’s increased costs to consumers, will be given to green pressure groups so they can promote even more inefficient and unwieldy schemes.

But it doesn’t stop there. Two other categories of recipients stand to profit from Lieberman-Warner at your expense. Remember, all this is being enacted in the name of “doing something,” even though no one believes it would actually do anything such as alter the climate (in fact, how much the scheme would even reduce emissions — if at all — is highly questionable, what with the allowance of credit for those notorious carbon dioxide “offsets.”)

First is the less obvious group, other countries. Note this provision:

Section 1316 International Reserve Allowance Program

(a) ESTABLISHMENT. —

(1) IN GENERAL. — The Administrator shall establish a program under which the Administrator shall offer for sale to United States importers international reserve allowances in accordance with this subsection. Importers shall be able to purchase international reserve allowances by no later than the earliest date that Administrator distributes allowances under Titles V through XI. . . . 

(7) PROCEEDS. — All proceeds from the sale of international reserve allowances under this subsection shall be allocated to a program that the Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall establish to mitigate the negative impacts of global climate change on disadvantaged communities in other countries. . . .

Once you hack away the bureaucratic lingo, the bill promises to  rope the U.S. into a form of international wealth transfer – of the very kind that we would be paying for already if the Senate had found the nerve to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This transfer will be funded by the higher price you pay for goods, as manufacturers and importers pass along the cost of their ration coupons.

Now to the lowest-hanging fruit. The fact that the corporations touting Lieberman-Warner stand to profit from it financially is old news, at least to anyone who isn’t a journalist. But as I posted earlier, some of these rent-seekers have decided not to support the current version of the bill after seeing that they’ll have to pay for their ration coupons and so won’t get to keep the full increase in energy prices for themselves. Others, mostly nuke and windmill types like Exelon, GE and FPL, remain quite gung-ho because they’ll still clean up, so to speak, at your expense.

I’m now soliciting suggestions for the names of the company or companies that successfully lobbied to include “credit” for business decisions made a decade or more ago. For these actions, which were taken on their economic merits at the time, the companies would be given ration coupons, which they can sell on the state-created market.

Title VII Recognizing Early Action

Section 701 Rulemaking

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate rules establishing an Early Action Program for distributing emission allowances to entities that emit greenhouse gas in the United States, in recognition of verified greenhousegas emissions reductions — 

(1) that occurred prior to promulgation of the rules required by this section; and 

(2) that resulted from actions taken by the entities after January 1, 1994 and before the date of enactment of this Act.

As Fred Smith informed the Senate Environment committee last year, these rent-seekers are particularly egregious and their motivations often particularly transparent. This provision means that the bill, already slated to not really reduce emissions due to pending offsets, will do less than nothing thanks to these retroactive ones.

So who exactly pushed for this “early action” recognition? Let’s try to name names.

Former Congressman Pat Toomey, now of the Club for Growth, mentioned on the Cavuto Business Hour that green pressure groups might well be recipients of lucre under in Lieberman-Warner. That implicitly means that greens would reap millions from the trillions in booty taken out of the productive sector of the economy by the energy taxes found in that bill.

He specifically claimed that they might receive allocations of ration coupons, along with organized labor and other favored groups, which they could then sell.

Then again, there is always the danger of slush funds in schemes like this, whereby some of the revenues raised by the bill – now touted by its champions as really all about refunds to consumers paying increased energy costs (if so, why not offer a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Too transparent?) – are directed to the greens.

Either way, if true, would of course be explosive.

So here is an example of the latter form of subsidy to the greens, in most of this particular scheme’s detail walking through the energy-tax funded underwriting of the green groups and their various franchisees to do that which they do now, which includes training other countries how to agitate against the U.S. for their own rents and otherwise the green agenda:

Subtitle C International Partnerships to Deploy Clean TechnologySection 1331 Purpose and Construction

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subtitle is to promote and leverage private financing for the development and international deployment of technologies that will contribute to sustainable economic growth and the stabilization of greenhouse?gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…

 

Section 1333 Establishment

There is established in the Treasury a Fund to be known as the “Clean Development Technology Deployment Fund.”

 

Section 1334 Auction

Over the course of at least 4 auctions spaced evenly over a period beginning 330 days before, and ending 60 days before, the beginning of calendar year 2012, the Administrator shall, for the purpose of raising cash to deposit into the Clean Development Technology Deployment Fund, auction 0.5 percent of the aggregate quantity of emission allowances established for calendar years 2012 through 2017 pursuant to subsection (a) of section 201.

 

Section 1335 Deposit

The Administrator shall, immediately upon receipt of proceeds from auctioning conducted pursuant to section 1334, deposit all such proceeds into the Clean Development Technology Deployment Fund established by section 1333.

 

Section 1336 Use of Funds

In each calendar year, all funds deposited into the Clean Development Technology Deployment Fund in the preceding year pursuant to section 1335 shall be made available, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, to the Clean Development Technology Deployment Board established pursuant to section 1337 to provide assistance under that section…

 

Section 1337

(d) (d) ASSISTANCE.—The Board, acting through the Secretary of States, is authorized to provide assistance under this section to qualified entities to support the purposes of this section.

 (e) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Consistent with international legal obligations of the United States regarding intellectual property, assistance under this section may be provided—

(1) as direct assistance in the form of grants, concessional loans, cooperative agreements, contracts, insurance, or loan guarantees to or with qualified entities;

(2) as indirect assistance to such entities through—

(B) support from development and export promotion assistance programs of the United States Government; or

(C) support from international technology programs of the Department of Energy; or

(3) in such other forms as the Board may determine appropriate…

(f) USE OF FUNDS.—Assistance provided under this section may be used for one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Funding for capacity building programs, including—

(A) developing and implementing methodologies and programs for measuring and quantifying greenhouse?gas emissions and verifying emission reductions;

(B) assessing technology and policy options for greenhouse?gas emission mitigations; and

(C) providing other forms of technical assistance to facilitate the qualification for, and receipt of, program funding under this subtitle…

 (g) QUALIFIED ENTITIES.—A qualified entity referred to in subsection (h) is—

(1) the national government of an eligible country;

(2) a regional or local governmental unit of an eligible country;

(3) a nongovernmental organization or a private entity located or operating in an eligible country.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Promotion of state-level greenhouse gas reduction policies has now advanced into viral video, with a slick new piece that crows about the work of the enviro-advocacy Center for Climate Strategies. My analysis of the short film will follow in a subsequent post, but the producer, Sea Studios Foundation, spared no effort in getting CCS client-governors to appear in the 15-minute feature, which includes Martin O’Malley (Maryland), Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota, pictured), Janet Napolitano (Arizona), and Charlie Crist (Florida).

Who is Sea Studios Foundation? They are the nonprofit counterpart to Sea Studios Inc., which is 2/3-owned by television producer Mark Shelley, according to the foundation’s IRS 990 tax returns. The foundation and Sea Studios Inc. share office space in Monterey, Calif. and have a “resource sharing agreement,” under which the foundation paid the company $86,916 in 2006. In 2006 Shelley was paid $177,446 (which includes health benefits) by his for-profit company, of which $163,098 was reimbursed by the foundation. The 990 explains that Shelley “spent the majority of his time producing Foundation projects and fundraising for future Foundation projects.” An interview with the Grist Web site shows that Shelley feels real good about himself:

Q. Which stereotype about environmentalists most fits you?

A. My Toyota Prius and the hypocrisy that I fly my own small plane. Environmentalists are rarely perfect. They are just usually more so than others.

According to the foundation’s Web site, the organization believes the world faces “unprecedented global environmental threats,” and therefore “is dedicated to raising environmental literacy and motivating action in the US and internationally to address urgent threats to our planet’s health.” That entails the global warming catastrophism outcry and the praise of anyone who does something to stop it. Sea Studios’ most recognized work are collaborations with public television stations in New York (WNET), on “Nature,” and in Boston (WGBH), on “National Geographic’s Strange Days on Planet Earth.” Sea Studios has also obtained millions of dollars in federal grants from the National Science Foundation for various projects.

Sea Studios’ new Web video, which is titled “Ahead of the Curve: States Lead on Climate Change” (a sequel to an earlier production, “Ahead of the Curve: Business Leads on Climate Change”), not surprisingly was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The enviro-grantmaker, led by Neva-Says-Die-Carbon Rockefeller, ponied up at least $90,000 for the project, after providing $75,000 three years ago for an earlier Sea Studios film “to support a convincing case that emissions reductions are achievable, cost-effective, and beneficial to the bottom line.”

The Rockefellers’ involvement in yet another CCS prop-up makes it clear that this state-level effort is as much their own as it is CCS’s, cleverly cloaked as an objective, non-advocacy process. After all, RBF has written an article praising CCS, then sent them to state enviro-crats as promotional materials for their work. RBF also guarantees money to CCS for new states when the resources can’t be raised elsewhere. And now, it’s dazzling videos – a truly Rockefellifying extravaganza! Can’t wait for the theme park.

Update 11:35 a.m.: Apparently an auditor for the National Science Foundation thought the relationship between Sea Studios Foundation and Sea Studios Inc. was a little too slushy (PDF) a few years ago.