1 / 28

Environmental Hysteria and the Campaign to Regulate Our Economy

Environmental Hysteria and the Campaign to Regulate Our Economy. Preserving the American Dream May 17, 2008. What if your state set up a commission to study global warming?. Politics & Global Warming. Some contributing factors to consider: Media bias Who are the rent-seekers?

moe
Télécharger la présentation

Environmental Hysteria and the Campaign to Regulate Our Economy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Hysteria and the Campaign to Regulate Our Economy Preserving the American Dream May 17, 2008

  2. What if your state set up a commission to study global warming?

  3. Politics & Global Warming Some contributing factors to consider: • Media bias • Who are the rent-seekers? • Environmental grants • Big fossil fuel $ (big) vs. Big enviro-alarmist $ (bigger) • Silencing of the skeptics • “The debate is over” • UN IPCC Summary (“consensus”) vs. actual IPCC scientists (“not”) • Organizational statements vs. rank-and-file support • ‘Green’ industry subsidies

  4. Science & Global Warming Some contributing factors to consider: • Natural variation in temperatures in the past • Solar activity • Cloud cover • Sea ice loss (Arctic); sea ice increase (Antarctic) • Recent temperature trends (downward) • CO2 trails warming, rather than leading it • People, animals and plants thrive more with warming than cooling • Ocean temperatures (not warming?) • Errant hurricane predictions • Greenhouse gases

  5. What is really happening in the states? One greenhouse gas: CO2

  6. What is really happening in the states? “Participants will not debate the science of climate change, the goals established in the (governor’s) executive order, or the timeline, but will instead provide leadership and a vision for how (YOUR STATE HERE) will rise to the challenges and opportunities of addressing climate change.” (Ground Rules)

  7. Who is CCS? Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) Enterprising Environmental Solutions Inc. (EESI) Center for Climate Strategies (CCS)

  8. Who is the Pennsylvania Environmental Council?

  9. Who is the Pennsylvania Environmental Council? WEB SITE: “No environmental issue is more pressing today than energy and climate.”

  10. Who is EESI/CCS?

  11. Who is EESI/CCS?

  12. Who is EESI/CCS?

  13. In their own words: CCS Executive Director Tom Peterson: “The idea that we have advocates for PEC working on the North Carolina project is incorrect. (EESI) does not have an advocacy mission, and it doesn’t have an advocacy history.”

  14. Who funds CCS? • Rockefeller Bros. Fund • The (Teresa) Heinz (Kerry) Endowments • The (Ted) Turner Foundation • Merck Family Fund • Energy Foundation • Sandler Family Supporting Foundation (Soros) Indirectly: • William & Flora Hewlett Foundation • Pew Charitable Trusts

  15. In their own words: CCS Executive Director Tom Peterson: “We’re a service organization. We don’t accept contingent outcomes from any donor, including [from] states.” PEC president, CCS board member Brian Hill: "Any private funding obtained by EESI to support the work of CCS has no mandate for, or commitment to, specific policy outcomes."

  16. CCS: A to Z • Control process • ‘Opt-out’ voting • Propose all options • Run meetings, agenda • ‘Stakeholder’ group • Pass options • Legitimized by gov’t • Advocacy • ‘Service group’ • Funded by advocacy • Lobby states • Attractive to states • Executive orders • Get hired

  17. Typical Recommendations Goal is to reduce GHGs, not climate: • Carbon tax and/or Cap-and-Trade (energy rationing) • Renewable portfolio standards (increase) • Renewable energy incentives • Subsidies for “waste to energy” (burning chicken poop) • Public benefit charge (fee on electric bills) • Mandatory ‘advanced (electric) metering infrastructure’ • Preservation of working lands/forest lands • Biofuel subsidies

  18. Transportation & Land Use • Restrict parking availability to encourage transit use • Pay-as-you-drive insurance • Subsidies for mass transit, bike paths, pedestrian • Locate all government offices downtown • Tailpipe GHG emissions standards • Biofuels in government fleets • Transit-oriented development • Compact development • Require transportation integration w/ land use planning - Punishment to city/community: w/hold transp. funds

  19. Where is CCS? • Michigan • Minnesota • Montana • New Mexico • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • South Carolina • Vermont • Washington • Alaska? • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Iowa • Kansas • Maryland • Michigan

  20. What’s going on in states? • CO: Gov. Ritter’s cabinet-level climate and energy advisers funded by Hewlett Found. • KS: 1st indication of $$ coming from political activists (Sandler), and not just enviro foundations • IA: Actual budget removed from version of memo posted to state web site (“fully transparent?”) • States aren’t paying anything lately (IA, KS, MI, AR) - keeps CCS beholden to funders, hide public records

  21. In their own words: Edward Garvey, Minnesota Office of Energy Security, co-coordinator of MCCAG: “I think (MCCAG) challenged CCS far more than they have been challenged in other states.” - St. Paul Pioneer Press, 1/24/08

  22. In their own words: Tad Aburn, Maryland Dept. of Environment, coordinator of MD Advisory Group: “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.” - Associated Press

  23. What does CCS say about its own proposals? • “The recommendations are projected to create net economic savings of over $2 billion for the State economy over the period 2007-2020.” (New Mexico) • “(Our) goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 can be met and exceeded if all recommendations are implemented.” (Montana) • “If you do it right ... you can save money, create jobs and cut emissions.” (Tom Peterson)

  24. What does Beacon Hill Institute say about CCS’s proposals? • No dollar value is placed on reducing GHG emissions, making it impossible to quantify the cost savings • Net savings from recommendations do not include net costs • Failure to recognize market forces, in that consumers would already pursue savings if they could be had • Instead of identifying jobs as costs, they categorize them as benefits • “Seriously flawed,” “Fictitious analysis”

  25. What Climate Strategies Watch is trying to do: • Reveal methodology, funding sources, FOIAs • No analysis of recommendations’ impact on climate • No cost-benefit analysis; economic impact • Beacon Hill Institute economic analysis, peer reviews • No feasibility studies • Visit states and help build coalitions • Taxpayer activists, property rights, think tanks, talk radio, bloggers, social conservatives, legislators

  26. Climate Strategies Watch.com • ‘CCS in detail’ • Investigative stories • Recommendations • New developments • How they operate • Who funds them

  27. Contact Information Paul Chesser 200 West Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 828-3876 Climatestrategieswatch.com pc@climatestrategieswatch.com

More Related