We missed it in the holiday rush, but Marc Morano has this statement at the Senate EPW minority’s website …

Continue Reading »

The Chilling Effect occasionally interviews scholars, thinkers, and activists who focus on issues of energy and environment — especially those that take a free market perspective. This week we interview Chris Horner, author of the new book Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

TCE: Give us the quick description of who you are, where you work, and why you have found yourself in the middle of the climate change discussion.

CH: I’m a lawyer who, in mid-1997, found myself being told that my top priority (in a non-legal job) for a little company called Enron was to get a “global warming” treaty, because they had put together a business plan of assembling companies on the relative cheap that would pay off enormously were I to succeed to essentially regulate coal out of the U.S. energy mix; some of them, like their then-world’s largest wind and solar ventures would *only* pay off with the subsidies and mandates like those that the Kyoto agenda calls for. Upon taking the job — if without having been told that particular priority first — I found myself in a room with NRDC one day, and the Union of Concerned Scientists (along with a lot of other rent-seeking industry) the next. An email I sent wondering what in the world was going on went over quite poorly, very nasty things ensued from my boss immediately and it was clear this was not where I was supposed to be. An enlightening several week experiment. Fortunately, several issue advocacy groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute were putting up a fight, a merry band I joined and with whom I have been proudly allied ever since.

TCE: You have been the victim of dirty tricks by Greenpeace. Tell us about that.

CH: I noticed, when throwing the ball to my dogs out back a regular occurrence of my Monday morning trash pick up, alone among my block, taking place the night before. I soon confirmed that it was Greenpeace taking my trash — as well as that of the White House aide smeared by Al Gore in his movie — and cobbling together unrelated pieces of offal, pitching “stories” to the Washington Post, National Journal and Roll Call, among others, none of whom to their credit bit. I had some fun tempting them with items I placed in there, hoping to chide them when they called. Which they didn’t. Much like The Guardian, a left-wing UK snivel-sheet that nonetheless ran a brazenly dishonest hit piece, proving just how sadly some on the media have tossed their lot in with ideological Doppelgangers, radical environmentalists. This was only one of several personal experiences I had with Big Green, which I related over lunch to others at a gathering mostly of scientists, from around the world, in Vienna in 2006. The stories they told in response shocked even jaded, post-Enron me, going well beyond the petty “we know where you live” harassment to professional and even death threats. That’s when I decided I needed to write this book.

TCE: Your book highlights “threats, fraud, and deception.” Can you give us an example of each?

CH: Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo was one of those at the lunch I mentioned. When he began speaking out the greens initiated some petty harassment, and when he kept speaking out it was clear that further measures were required. The wheels fell off of his car. Twice. The second time with his young daughter in the car. His mechanic had said the lugs were loosened. Tim Ball, Canada’s first climate PhD, has received death threats. Professional threats – like nice career track you’ve got here, sure be a shame if something happened to it…hey, I notice you’ve been speaking out against our gravy train – are regular. Scientists replied to our inquiries into signing on the “skeptics’ brief before the Supreme Court in the CO2 case: you must be kidding me, I’m up for tenure. Think about that sad commentary.

I document a few cases where fraud is being formally investigated, and specifically cite a case involving vows made in published research about certain measuring instruments, covering a very large land mass, being examples of data integrity, don’t worry about those, they’ve not been urbanized, moved closer to the ocean, anything like that. Turns out the reason is because the stations never existed. And this is key data that the IPCC relies upon for its claims, and it seems entirely made up. As to deception, well, where better to start in the principal pop culture vehicle for this movement, “An Inconvenient Truth” than with that little item of cause-and-effect, which Al Gore gets 180 degrees wrong and — it is quite plain – does so intentionally. He failed to superimpose those two lines running across the screen in the famous shot before he mounts the hydraulic lift, one line representing CO2 and the other temperature, which seemed odd for such a tech savvy guy. The reason of course is that to do so would reveal that they show the opposite of what he says they show. Same with his producer, Laurie David, in her children’s book, who switched the labels on the axes of the CO2/temperature line graphs (which she *did* superimpose, if thereby requiring that one minor “adjustment”). So, little things like that.

TCE: Your book looks at Al Gore, the UN, and New York Times. Is there anyone “most” to blame for the current climate of fear, or was it truly a team effort?

CH: This is a broad-based coalition starting with the population zealots, nanny-statists, fallen communists, pro-tax, anti-development usual suspects…plus. The most egregious offenders include the institutions of science, which do retain great public trust, and had better given the tens of billions the public hands them each year. But they have proven wretchedly unworthy of this, having largely sold out in the name of guaranteed appropriations and with significant annual increases. I quote one leading alarmist in “Red Hot Lies” cautioning his peers — in 1990, mind you — to be careful not to kill off this golden goose, because they will not have seen the likes of it before and may not again. I take that as an admonition to not let certain queasiness over unsupportable alarmism to get in the way. Whatever, they seemed to have listened.

Yet I have to say that despite the media deservedly plummeting in the public’s estimation, they still serve a valuable information function that, through repetition, can partly overcome the suspicion the public has for the media’s flexible standards. And the press have made the most of this role, moving from good old sensationalism in order to sell copy and, later, to gain viewers, to becoming full-fledged advocates of a cause. I quote leading figures in their industry admitting as much. I see this as just one more manifestation of this self-selecting universe having increasingly become a band of folks who try to use their jobs to “make a difference”, and advance a cause, but in the guise of objective keepers-of-the-truth and public guardians. I suppose I should be thankful that the media and Al Gore are the alarmist movement’s leading mouthpieces.

TCE: Given your perspective, where do you see the discussion of energy and environment going in 2009?

CH: I see a policy overreach like the Clinton-Gore BTU tax in 1993, in fact very much like BTU given the parallels of a “rock star” president sweeping into town with hopes of pushing a particular anti-energy agenda and a Democratic Congress to work with (specifically, it was the Senate that handed them their BTU defeat). Al Gore attributes that setback to losing control of Congress the next year, so certainly they won’t try the front door in the form of a direct tax this time, but their vastly more expensive regulatory tax, “cap-and-trade” rationing, amounts to climbing in the back door. Regardless, it is nearly inescapable that the policy debate will come to a head: legislation has to be pushed in an odd-numbered year, for political reasons. Kyoto’s expiration in 2012 means there will be great pressure — already slipping, out of deference to what is viewed as a fellow-traveling Obama administration — to agree to some successor at the December 2009 talks in Copenhagen.

But the one thing that guarantees Congress will try something breathtaking — possibly even a “fast track”, non-treaty approach to Kyoto II as some are calling for in order to get around persistent Senate opposition — is the phony urgency they are plying due to the EPA rulemaking, regulating carbon dioxide as of all things a “pollutant”. (At least when the CO2 comes from man, that is. Otherwise it’s great stuff). Now, obviously the administration and Congress could each with ease call off that ill-fitting effort to apply a 1970s law to a 1990s fad for which it was never designed and which even the greens acknowledge will lead to massive unintended economic consequences. This would allow them to proceed deliberately with the most expensive undertaking in our time; but as we’ve seen, that’s not their way when they want to force a few trillion out of the treasury for things that just might not withstand scrutiny. So I expect a battle and, at least with Chairman Henry Waxman now in place, even the regulated business community getting its act together, putting aside their obsession with cutting individual deals, in favor of actually trying to defeat a terrible proposal. Trying to win the greater cause is an instinct I have feared had been bred out of them, but now I’m not so sure.

Last week we came across World Growth, an international organization that seemed to care more about good policy than the prattling of do-gooders. Here we exchange a few questions and answers with World Growth’s leader, Alan Oxley.

1) Can you give us a brief description of your organization and why it was formed?

For more than 30 years, I’ve participated in the global debate over development and globalization. During that time, I realized that the dialogue was out of balance. It was missing a credible voice to articulate the critical role free markets in alleviating poverty at a faster and sharper rate than at any time in history, so I founded World Growth to fill that void.

Through World Growth, we’ve been able to educate the public on globalization’s ability to connect citizens around the world, enabling them to communicate and trade with each other to an extent never seen before in history. Firsthand accounts of the benefits of this interconnection along with a growing body of economic research confirm what most of us instinctively know: We’re better off when we work together.

2) You take an interesting look at forestry policies. Can you explain your organization’s general view?

Forestry has the potential to help the world’s poor. In forest-rich developing economies, commercial forestry creates jobs and generates taxes and exports. By clearing forest land, impoverished communities are also able to obtain fuelwood, grow food and cash crops, and create space fore settlements and housing, activities all of which are essential to developing society and raising living standards. In addition to supporting economic development, forestry also stands to play in a significant role in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

3) Please tell us a bit about your recently-released report.

The report outlines the ways in which forestry can be carefully managed to produce dividends for the environment as well as the economy. The findings of “Winners All: How Forestry Can Reduce Both Climate Change Emissions and Poverty—A Pro-Development Program” carefully lays out the facts for global leaders.

It demonstrates the ways in which expanded, sustainable forestry can offset up to 46% of human carbon emissions. For instance, China’s current work on afforestation — the country plans to increase its forest area by 20 percent by 2010 — could end up mitigating an additional 50 million tons of CO2. That’s roughly enough to offset the emissions of the entire country of Sweden for a whole year.

On top of being incredibly effective at increasing the world’s carbon sinks, this comprehensive approach to forestry is able to do what other, more narrowly-focused forestry initiatives cannot: successfully balance economic growth in developing nations with the preservation of forest health and biodiversity. It’s a win-win, a chance to bolster the global economy while also improving the environment.

4) The largest obstacle to good policy seems to be well-meaning activists. You are outspoken about some groups that seem to do more harm than good. Could you tell readers why they should take a closer look at these groups’ claims?

Many overzealous green groups like the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace illustrate two fundamental divides in environmental debates, first, in general and, second, over climate change. How far should environmental goals be pushed at the expense of economic growth and strategies to eliminate poverty? The international consensus in the UN is that the interests of each need to be balanced. Regrettably, groups like WWF and Greenpeace regularly push environmental solutions without regard to their social and economic impact.

Take their strategy for forestry in a new global approach on climate change. Elimination of deforestation is their key goal. The claim is that this will eliminate 20 percent of emissions globally. This sounds good until you realize that their strategy risks increasing poverty in poor countries. Most deforestation occurs to provide land for habitation and food.

UN climate change studies show expansion of forestry and better management of forests will provide a benefit double that of simply concentration on deforestation, and do so at a lower coast. Why is that not supported by the leading Green activist? Because their approach to strategies to reduce climate change emissions is colored by the politics of their opposition to non-renewable energy industries and commercial forestry.

The result, as World Growth’s latest report shows, is that the most effective way to reduce emissions — expansion of forestry — is sidelined. This is counterproductive. If the economic cost of climate change measures is too high, there will be no global consensus over a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol.

Is it possible that well-intentioned activists have it all wrong on the way that forests can be seen as a solution to — not just a cause of — global warming? According to one group, that’s the case. Here’s a statement we got, and we thought we’d pass along. It’s from World Growth International, which says its mission is to expand the education, information and other resources available to disadvantaged populations to improve their health and economic welfare. Thus sayeth WGI’s Alan Oxley:

“It’s time to turn the tide in the global forestry debate,” Oxley says. “Many Western governments and environmental activists have gone too far. For instance, they’re now proposing that all deforestation be halted in tropical zones — a move that would undoubtedly increase poverty in developing countries.”

“This kind of absolute restriction stems from a misunderstanding of what deforestation truly is,” Oxley explains. “Each year the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reports that most deforestation is caused by poor families harvesting trees for fuel or clearing land to plant crops for food.”

… continued …

“Green activist groups like WWF and Friends of the Earth (FOEI) perpetuate the misconception that the forestry is a black-and-white issue. But that’s simply not true,” Oxley continues. “If forests are managed in sustainable ways, their cultivation can both raise living standards and reduce greenhouse gases.”

“Forestry offers a win-win for the economy and the environment. For that reason, a growing number of organizations — including World Growth, the prominent Collaborative Partnership on Forests, and others — are promoting sustainable forestry at the Poznan meeting this week.”

Could be that the Climate Change Science Program head isn’t as qualified as he says … Chris Horner has the details.

• Aussies are growing “bored” with climate change, according to The Age.  “Only 46 per cent of Australians said they would take action on climate change if they were in charge of making decisions for Australia, a dip from 55 per cent last year.

• UK’s new secretary of state for energy and climate change has first day on job.

• China close to saying “no deal” on global pact to cut greenhouse gases.

• NY Times and Washington Post talk about viability of carbon offsets in the financial downturn…“People still come to the site, but where you used to get people signing up [for offsets] every day, now you’d be lucky to get a few people a week,” said Fred Weiss, a small-time offset seller based in Ann Arbor, Mich., who sends customers stickers that say, “Carbon Neutral Vehicle.” Apparently that isn’t as important now. “Who cares about the environment? Am I going to have a house next week?” he imagined would-be customers saying.

We don’t like to wade into politics, but that’s the battleground for ridiculous policies that will harm our economy (and do little good for the environment) in the name of taking action against global warming. John McCain has given a major speech in Portland, OR about his desire to fight supposed climate change.

Campaigning in the Pacific Northwest, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, R-Ariz., will break sharply from the Bush administration on climate change, calling for urgent steps to confront its threat and saying that as president he “will not shirk the mantle of leadership” on the issue.

Continuing from the same story, it’s clear that McCain’s rationale, at least that which he states publicly, is of great concern.

“We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great,” McCain will say. “”The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.”

McCain proposed a “cap-and-trade” system that sets overall limits on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies with low emissions to sell their credits to companies that fail to meet their benchmarks. He called for capping total U.S emissions nationwide at 2005 levels by the year 2012, at 1990 levels by 2020, with the aim of cutting emissions by 2050 by at least 60 percent of the 1990 levels. He does not mention mandating higher fuel efficiency levels for vehicles.

That cap-and-trade system will cause economic havoc, as shown by the great cost-impact study from the American Council on Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers. (Whoops, guess it’s a problem that McCain doesn’t know much about economics!) More worrisome is that he believes listens only to “serious and credible” scientists who agree with his position. What about the very serious and very credible scientists standing up against global warming rhetoric — like those profiled in Deniers?

So why the rush to push dubious policies? Judging this line from Reuters, McCain appears to be using the issue for his own political gain:

His decision to speak in Oregon, a state with a large number of environmentally concerned Democrats and independents, signals an attempt to use his climate change credentials to draw such voters away from his possible Democratic rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Can’t prevent a politician from acting like a politician, but we can at least recognize them for what they are and what they are doing.