TPPF COMMENTARY: A Change in Climate for Climate Change Policy

With President-elect Barack Obama and larger Democratic majorities in the U.S. Congress, the conventional wisdom has been that next year will be "all systems go" for the type of major climate change legislation that President George W. Bush had been blocking. However, in this week's commentary, Kathleen Hartnett White, Director of the Foundation's Center for Natural Resources and former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, lists six reasons why she believe that won't necessarily be the case.

---

A Change in Climate for Climate Change Policy

By Kathleen Hartnett White

Come what dramatic political and economic changes may occur, a refrain persists within the media, industry, and the U.S. Congress that onerous federal mandates to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) are inevitable. I don’t think so.

In less than a year, many unanticipated developments have complicated the political dynamics of “ending the era of fossil fuels” through the enactment of carbon reduction mandates. Consider six such developments that may give pause to policymakers otherwise inclined to support these measures:

* When the price of oil topped $4.00 a gallon and food inflation reached almost 8 percent, most voters got it: price and security first! At least a dozen recent polls show that three-fourths of likely voters put far more importance on the U.S. oil supply than global warming. This prevalent public opinion dissolved the U.S. Congress’ long and intransigent opposition to increased domestic oil production. In late September, the 30-year bans on offshore oil production expired. The rapid decline in the price of oil, as a result of economic slowdown, has not yet squelched broad support for more domestic oil production.

* Energy independence has become a battle cry across the political spectrum. The painfully high price of oil increased the public’s recognition that there are no near-term, realistic alternatives to the dominance of fossil fuels in the U.S. energy supply. American dependence on unreliable, if not inimical, sources of foreign oil worries Main Street far more than it used to.

* The European Union’s (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS), once the model for a U.S. program, continues to fail. Europe’s program is not reducing CO2 and has lead to higher energy costs. The U.S. has reduced more CO2 by market efficiencies and without any complicated cap-and-trade programs. Growing numbers of EU member countries, including Italy, now want to delay (read: scratch) the ETS because of economic woes approaching crisis proportions.

* By the time the Lieberman-Warner bill (S.2191) made it to the U.S. Senate floor last summer, the veil on its staggering cost had been lifted. The world’s most ambitious, enforceable carbon regime to date, S.2191 would impose exorbitant costs and require unprecedented expansion of the federal control, but would yield no measureable effect on global climate unless China and India undertook similarly draconian programs.

* Far more substantial climate science emerges and is a game-changer for the reigning science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Observational evidence from NASA satellites indicates little to no heat-forcing effect from manmade CO2. This NASA data is empirical science, far superior to the uncertain IPCC computer models.

* And the clincher: the specter of global recession. Worldwide financial turmoil presents the most hard-hitting obstacle to mandatory CO2 reduction. While figures may differ, no one doubts that CO2 reduction mandates would lead to far higher prices for fuel, power, food, and other basic consumer goods. Until the U.S. and global economies stabilize, the least prudent among us might delay CO2 regulations that would overturn our energy economy.

Amidst the current economic maelstrom, some congressional leaders perversely cling to carbon regulation as a new federal revenue source to compensate for a reduced tax base. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government’s auction of carbon allocations, e.g., power companies forced to buy permission to keep generating electricity, could generate trillions in revenue. Inconvenient facts, however, may have changed the political climate necessary for major CO2 reduction programs absent available control technology.

In the last year, many policy makers and voters have learned some hard facts about energy and the economy. If an ounce of reason might prevail, climate change policymakers would acknowledge that mandates are premature and impracticable. Immediate steps should be toward extending the new empirical climate science and market-based development of energy efficient technologies.

Natural variability – or change, simply speaking – is the hallmark of climate and politics; not easy to predict and never inevitable.

Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

How "inconvenient"

Last year, our friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research obtained the energy bills from Academy Award-winning documentarian Al Gore’s Nashville mansion. They found, among other things, that Gore’s electricity usage in August 2006 was more than twice what the average American household uses in an entire year.

Gore family spokesman Kalee Kreider responded that, “the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.”

So TCPR just took another look at Nobel laureate Al Gore’s energy bills to see how their “reducing and offsetting” was going. What they found: Even after a “green” retrofit in June 2007 that included new solar panels, a geothermal heating system, lighting upgrades, and an overhaul of the windows and ductwork, Gore’s home energy usage in the 12 months following the renovations was more than 10% higher than the 12 months before.

The average American household consumes 11,040 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. Gore’s Nashville mansion uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month.

And that doesn’t include the carbon footprint from Al Gore’s private jet and Lincoln Town Car transport, his Live Earth concerts, or his 2007 book and arena tours.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Al Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. Al Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

Even after all of his mansion renovations, Al Gore has quite a bit of work to do to get his proverbial carbon house in order.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF Policy Primer: Energy and the Environment-Economic Growth in the Face of the Challenges of Clean Air and Global Warming

Despite dramatic improvements in air quality in Texas over the last 30 years, ever-tightening “clean air” regulations continue to impose heavy costs on the Texas economy. On the horizon, potential regulation of CO2 could have a much greater impact on Texas’ economic growth, manufacturing, and energy production, despite the mounting body of evidence challenging the effectiveness of such regulations. This event will examine the environmental successes in Texas, the upcoming regulatory challenges we are facing, and what can be done to avoid imposing heavier regulatory costs on Texas businesses and consumers.

November 14th, 2007

Location:
Houston City Club
One City Club Drive
Houston TX 77046

11:00 to 12:30 - Panel Discussion

Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Joel Schwartz, American Enterprise Institute (invited)
Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy Foundation

12:30 - Luncheon

Remarks: Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Keynote Address: Rep. Dennis Bonnen, Chairman of the House Environmental Regulation Committe

Price: $15.00 per person (complimentary for current donors)

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below