Heyo, we’re back with another liveblogging adventure. Last time it was at the Americans For Prosperity event in Texas. Today we’re at the State Policy Network’s global warming forum at the annual conference of the State Policy Network.
The event is moderated by Climate Strategies Watch chief and The Chilling Effect interviewee Paul Chesser. Esteemed panelists are Fred Smith of CEI, John Charles Jr of Cascade Policy Institute, and Diane Katz of The Fraser Institute. (Fred Smith does the introduction, so he could also be considered the moderator.)
2:02 (AZ time): Fred Smith calls the forum to order. He notes that both presidential candidates in some form or fashion support cap-and-trade and that many SPN member organizations are being forced to respond to harmful environmental policies related to global warming. Essentially, he says, we’re dealing with carbon rationing. Taxes are ideal, he says, because they are transparent, but opponents prefer solutions that are far muddier. $5 trillion is the tax increase he sees for carbon rationing plans out there. CEI has a great handout on the skeptic’s case.Interesting point: “A carbon tax or cap-and-trade both act as a tax on red states for the benefit of the blue states.”
2:09: Fred says: “You should be very, very afraid” about global warming “solutions”
2:10: John Charles, who has followed the issue in-depth for five years, because Oregon has a law that is tough on the local economy. The state’s governor is likely going to introduce a cap-and-trade plan in 2009. His argument: “do you realize the governor wants to begin rationing energy and the system being used is completely irrational and the proponents can’t even explain it?” He notes he would be in favor of a carbon tax, but global warming advocates don’t like to use the word “tax” so they prefer a “cap-and-spend” program.
“You could have a lot of fun following the money and asking a lot of questions” if other states get carbon offset plans, which lead to gross misuse of funds. “Chances are what you’ll find is a scam” he says. Regarding the “no regrets” strategy of dealing with possible climate change, John says, one solution ought to be congestion pricing next year when Congress takes up transportation.
2:26: Paul Chesser’s up offering some background on his own “eye-opening” find about a liberal advocacy organization’s stealth campaign to influence state laws without looking like it’s doing so. The basic model: the group will approach the executive branch and urge them to pressure federal authorities (even seeking international agreements) while claiming to be an objective consultant; they seek a “study commission” that the group can run, do all the work from A-Z and bring the money with them; they then stack the commission to get a predetermined outcome seeking drastic action.
Some of the common recommendations: carbon tax or cap-and-trade; renewable portfolio standards; pay-as-you-drive insurance; subsidies for “waste to energy” plans (burning chicken poop, he says). Paul highlights many of the allies groups have in case they feel like they are the only ones fighting bad global warming policies.
2:43: Diane Katz is up. She has good news and bad news. The good news is the Old Farmer’s Almanac forecast of cool weather for the next 50 years. The bad news: Al Gore will be 33 percent more annoying as TIME reports that global warming will be “33 percent worse” than we thought.Katz says the cap-and-trade schemes amount to government imposing on businesses and citizens, imposing regulations while knowing full-well that they will have absolutely no effect on climate change — if there is even climate change to be affected. She says that some have changed their positions fighting global warming to focus on making policy “less bad” but she believes it is important to fight the science because “this is about whether reason is going to be the organizing force of society” or whether we believe in voodoo.
It’s inconceivable that we’ve gone so far based on total myth, she says. She notes the efforts by governors in AZ, CA, NM, OR, UT, MT (may have missed one) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather drastically even though the technology doesn’t exist. She notes the New England states and other related efforts.
Regarding cap-and-trade, she emphasizes that “there’s nothing market-friendly” — it’s an “artificial scarcity imposed by the government.” It “sounds friendlier” than rationing or taxes, she says, “but it encompasses both.” It’s important to challenge the term “market-friendly,” she says. She points to a frequent analogy of acid rain, “but there’s significant differences between that program and applying it to carbon dioxide emissions” but argues that there are significant technological differences and, in that case, we were only dealing with one part of the economy (rather than the entire economy that comes in contact with CO2).
Fraser is looking at the effects of carbon taxes. You have to raise the price “really, really high” to affect peoples’ behavior, she says. You’d have to raise it so high “that the economy would collapse.” Carbon taxes won’t work, she argues, even “if you adopt the paradigm of the environmental alarmists.” … “You don’t need a climatologist on staff … because the guys on the other side are making stuff up,” she says.
2:56: Fred notes, “we have everything on our side but politicians and special interests.”
2:57 Questions … a questioner doesn’t have a question but warns of Climate Registry, an environmentalist group lurking to cause more havoc.
including the Energy Foundation, which focuses on renewable energy and efficient energy expansion, and the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, which has contributed to several environmental organizations.
