Greens Against Growth
Under normal circumstances, November 2008 might have been
remembered as a key moment in the American climate-change policy
debate. Two independent evaluations were made public that
analyzed California's groundbreaking, path-setting 2006 law
dictating a sharp state increase in the use of cleaner, costlier
energy -- specifically Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's repeated
assertions that not only would the law not be a drag on the
economy; it would actually make the state's economy healthier.
Similar claims are common in Washington and many state capitals,
which are all considering California-style regulations.
Both evaluations were highly dismissive of the notion that the
California plan would help the economy. The nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst's Office -- the most respected voice in
Sacramento --
concluded (pdf) that the California Air Resources Board's
claims of economic gains were simply not sustained by the
"scoping plan" it released outlining the implementation of the
2006 law. Instead, the plan ignored likely negative effects and
cherry-picked data to produce a forecast of long-term economic
benefits. Most tellingly, the LAO noted that the "ARB deemed all
measures included in the plan 'cost effective' simply because
they reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions, whatever the cost."
By this logic, a business shutting down would be "cost
effective."
But the most damning criticism came from the economists hired to
do a "peer
review" (pdf) of the ARB. Most were stunned by the shoddiness
of the ARB's analysis.
Wesleyan University's Gary Yohe denounced the "spurious
precision" of the ARB's forecasts, detailed vast shortcomings in
the report's methodology and found the readiness of the ARB to
make such confident claims "almost beyond belief." Two analysts
from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Janet Peace and
Liwayway Adkins, also faulted the report's methodology and said
the report "gives the appearance of justifying the chosen package
of regulatory measures rather than evaluating it." UCLA's Matthew
Kahn detailed how the ARB had simply ignored the likely effects
of much higher energy costs on California manufacturers, who
employ 1.5 million workers.
But the most striking remark came from the most prominent peer
reviewer: Robert Stavins, the director of the Harvard
Environmental Economics Program. He warned that the ARB's plan
had so many "glaring and severe errors and deficiencies" that it
could set back efforts to aggressively deal with global warming.
"I fear that at this stage of the process, CARB will find itself
in a position of being compelled to publicly defend its economic
analysis from critiques such as my own, rather than significantly
amend it in response to expert commentary," Stavins wrote.
So much for the view that the Golden State was a climate-change
model for the nation and the world. The Harvard economist clearly
expected the negative reaction to force California to go back to
the drawing board with its energy policy -- or to at least
acknowledge the economic downside of a forced move away from
cheaper energy sources.
Under normal circumstances, that's just what would have happened,
and the happy talk about a painless transition to a new energy
era might have been discounted.
Instead, the main effect of the two studies has been not to
change the course of the climate change debate but to confirm the
media is hopelessly in the tank on global warming.
As of Wednesday, a Nexis search shows the only newspapers
anywhere to detail the findings of either the Legislative
Analyst's Office or the peer-review economists are the San
Diego Union-Tribune, where I work as an editorial writer,
and the Sacramento Bee, which had a total of one
450-word account.
What was once merely a media hostility to skeptics of
human-caused global warming has now mutated into a media
hostility to anyone who has any doubts about the invasive,
inevitably costly ways that government wants to deal with climate
change. And so the critics of Arnold Schwarzenegger's bogus
claims for his global-warming approach must be ignored -- even if
they have impeccable reputations and unimpeachable credentials.
Now here's the sick kicker to this story of the news media's
greenout: The head of the California Air Resources Board, Mary
Nichols, was widely reported to be on President-elect Barack
Obama's short list to be the next administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. This was no surprise, given
Obama's lavish praise of Schwarzenegger's aggressive climate
policies.
But at some point will the media note that far from playing a
constructive role in the global-warming debate, Nichols' agency
was actually castigated by Harvard's Stavins, the author of the
most widely used textbook on economics and the environment?
Don't bet on it. The media have their narrative, and they're
sticking to it -- all inconvenient truths be damned.
Thwarting Energy Exploration in Colorado
Over at my Web site
I've posted a long, blow-by-blow account of how Colorado Gov.
Bill Ritter and his administration repeatedly enlisted the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to pay for his global
warming alarmist agenda (a "new energy economy") and for his
efforts to keep the federal Bureau of Land Management from
leasing for oil and gas exploration on the Roan Plateau. It's
sometimes a dry recitation but there are a ton of documents
linked that I obtained from the governor's office and from the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
The quick-'n-dirty summary: Almost immediately after he took
office Ritter had a "Climate Action Plan" he wanted to pursue,
which included two new positions in his administration: a
cabinet-level climate policy adviser to create "a bold and
visionary climate action policy," and a liaison to the Public
Utilities Commission to "develop a climate-wise utility policy."
He asked for, and got, two annual grants from Hewlett for
$200,000 ($400,000 total) to fund the positions. Ritter worked
through Hewlett's environmental program director Hal Harvey -- a
far-left, Obama-supporting (and -contributing) environmental
extremist who founded the Energy Foundation and is president of
the crackpot enviro/population control-advocating New-Land
Foundation -- to pay for his climate people. I guess the state
budget process would not come up with the money fast enough for
Ritter.
Within a few months Ritter had another
environmental cause to fight: obstructing and delaying the Bureau
of Land Management from leasing the rights to oil and natural gas
exploration on the rich Roan Plateau. It had been ten years
already since BLM was given the mandate to lease the Naval Oil
and Shale Reserves, and it was finally ready to start doing so
after years of environmental study and review. But that still
wasn't long enough for Ritter, his eco-cronies, Reps. Mark Udall
and John Salazar, and Sen. Ken Salazar (pictured). All got
involved in trying to further delay BLM.
Part of the strategy was for Ritter's administration to make the
case for much slower "phased leasing" of acreage on the Roan, as
opposed to the BLM's somewhat quicker but still limited and
methodical approach. The governor's Department of Natural
Resources sought out (and found) a cheap economist who would be
willing to put together a vague case that showed phased leasing
was a better idea that would reap better revenues for the state.
And can you guess who they asked to pay for said cheap economist?
Yep -- the Hewlett Foundation, with Hal Harvey more than happy to
help out. In fact, Harvey wanted to help so much that he gave
campaign contributions to both Salazars and Udall as well.
The congressmen worked at the federal level to implement Ritter's
phased leasing goals, with Sen. Salazar's legal counsel begging
for the suspect economic analysis to buttress his case. But the
congressmen's and Ritter's efforts fell short of their goals, as
BLM moved forward with the leasing, which netted nearly $114
million for both the federal and state governments -- "the
highest grossing onshore oil and natural gas lease sale in BLM
history in the lower 48 states."
Nevertheless, it's a sorry tale of how environmental extremists
will fight together to the death for measures that would cripple
access to our own sources of affordable energy.
Cross-posted at Cooler
Heads.
