Voice For Liberty

Tag: Climate change

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Hiding Budget Numbers

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch writes about the budget transparency of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    Kansas government often has troubles with transparency. One of the main problems with KEEP is that policy is being formulated under the guidance of an outside radical environmentalist group, instead of in the legislature by Kansans, where it belongs.

    Climate Strategies Watch is a great place to learn more about the Center for Climate Strategies. For example: “CCS portrays itself as a technical advisory service organization that does not advocate for specific policies that will affect climate change. However, certain facts about CCS belie this claim and prove the group is controlled by global warming alarmists who seek solutions that will dramatically increase energy costs and raise taxes, in addition to infringing upon freedom and property rights.”

  • Maryland Previews Kansas Climate Change Panel

    In Kansas, the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP, is meeting and planning the future of Kansas energy policy.

    If we want to see what the conclusions of this effort will look like, we can look to the just-completed effort in Maryland. Yes, we’ll have to make a few adjustments, as Maryland has a seashore and Kansas doesn’t, but the basic thrust of the report is likely to be much the same.

    That’s because in both states, the Center for Climate Strategies runs the show. Or, as one columnist wrote in Stupid environmentalist tricks in College Park:

    The MCCC [Maryland Climate Change Commission] itself is a kangaroo court conceived and controlled by the Center for Climate Strategies, a subsidiary of an avowed alarmist advocacy group posing as a disinterested technical consultant. If you want a sneak peek at what is in store for Maryland, just look at CCS’ other state reports; the recommendations are all nearly identical.

    It will be interesting to see just how little the report prepared for Kansas differs from the cookie-cutter reports prepared for other states whose governors have been foolish enough to let this radical environmentalist group operate in their states.

  • Center For Climate Strategies in Kansas: Good Economic Analysis?

    As the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group deliberates over the future of the environment in Kansas, we ought to examine the quality of the work product that the Center for Climate Strategies has produced in other states.

    The Beacon Hill Institute has performed an analysis of some of the work CCS has performed, and the results are troubling. This press release contains a link to the study document. This study is short at six pages, and I would encourage you to read the entire document.

    One of the things CCS does is to claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is actually good economic strategy, using cost-benefit analysis. The Beacon Hiss Institute report, however, finds three serious flaws with the methodology CCS used in its Arizona work. Specifically, CCS fails to quantify benefits meaningfully, misinterprets costs to be benefits, and its estimates of costs leave out important factors.

    To me, the misinterpretation of costs as being benefits is a common mistake that these studies make. They often point to the jobs that will be created, as though that in itself is a good. But workers need to be paid, and often the source of that pay is not considered.

  • Will Climate Change Impact Kansas?

    Kansas Liberty reports on the wide variance in conclusions drawn by two studies on the effect of climate change in Kansas in the post Will climate change impact Kansas? The fact that such variation exists tells me that we should proceed cautiously before committing Kansas to a costly process that, in the end, makes no difference to our climate.

  • Kansas owns the carbon, says the governor

    Sometimes I read about the things Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius says and I wonder how does she arrive at such outlandish conclusions.

    An example is in the article Gov. Sebelius gives interview to Grist about KS coal controversy, where our governor says this regarding a proposed coal-fired power plant expansion in Kansas: “Very little of the power that was scheduled to be produced was for Kansas. It actually was electricity that would be exported to Colorado and Texas, yet we would own the carbon. ”

    What does it mean to “own the carbon”? I thought it was called global warming, and that the source of the carbon doesn’t matter. It affects the entire globe. That’s why environmentalists in America are concerned about the rapid growth of coal-fired power plants in China. That Chinese carbon — if in fact it affects the global climate — is just as harmful as that produced in Kansas.

    So what does it mean to Kansans that “we would own the carbon”?

    Then, doesn’t Kansas benefit from exporting things that people in other states want to buy? Perhaps we should stop growing all the excess wheat that Kansans can’t consume themselves and let our wheat fields regress to their native, unplowed state. Perhaps the ancient buffalo habitat around Wichita, now covered with aircraft plants producing airplanes primarily for export out of Kansas, should be restored.

  • Wind Production Tax Credits Aren’t Free of Cost

    Nancy Jackson of the Climate and Energy Project in Kansas has some tips for citizens and candidates to use when talking about global warming. The article Tips for citizens and candidates – talking about the Production Tax Credit contains warnings about what will happen if the Production Tax Credit (PTC) isn’t extended beyond its scheduled expiration date at the end of 2008. Thousands of jobs and billions in investment will be at risk, the post says.

    Whether these tax credits are desirable is one issue. But what is not at issue is that these tax credits come with a cost. They aren’t free. Taxpayers have to pay for them, or, as is likely the case, the federal government borrows money to pay for them. Either way, the tax credits take money out of the pockets of people across the country to subsidize the production of wind power.

    When people have less money to spend because of the PTC, economic activity is reduced. Jobs are lost. Investment is not made or is deferred. The problem is that if the PTC is eliminated, the loss of jobs and investment will be concentrated and noticeable. Wind farms will cease to operate, it seems the alarmists are saying, and all the workers will be laid off. Television news crews will be at the wind farms on the workers’ last day on the job, and their plight will be reported and editorialized upon.

    But every day average people in America have a little less money in their pockets because of these tax credits. Their loss, on an individual basis, is small and not concentrated where it can be reported on. But it is real.

    We’ve seen how government subsidies to ethanol producers and corn growers have distorted markets worldwide. The same applies to wind power. To be a viable long-term strategy, wind power must be profitable on its own without subsidy.

  • KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual

    Earlier this year, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius created the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP. Its goal, as stated in the press release announcing its creation, is to “…explore opportunities in all sectors of our economy to accomplish the goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions…”

    Nancy Jackson of the Climate and Energy Project echoed these marching orders in her recent Wichita Eagle opinion piece.

    This predetermined goal, difficult as it will be to achieve, means nothing to the earth’s climate. What Kansas could do, even if we took the most drastic measure possible, is canceled by the action of others.

    As reported in Science Daily, “The growth in China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is far outpacing previous estimates … Auffhammer [one of the study’s authors] said this paper should serve as an alarm challenging the widely held belief that actions taken by the wealthy, industrialized nations alone represent a viable strategy towards the goal of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.”

    The increase in China’s emissions is staggering and swamps any attempt at reductions by other countries, much less a small state like Kansas. From 2000 to 2010, it is estimated that China’s growth in emissions will be about five times larger than the reductions pledged in the Kyoto Protocol.

    How does the growth in China’s emissions compare to Kansas’ emissions? According to the Energy Information Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, in 2005 Kansas produced about 78 million metric tons of carbon emissions from all sources.

    Then, according the source in Science Daily, China’s average annual growth in emissions in the current decade is about 60 million tons. So even if Kansas stopped producing all carbon emissions, the effect would be overcome in about 16 months of just the growth in China’s emissions. This doesn’t take into account the huge emissions China already produces, or the rapid growth in other countries.

    The reality is that any reduction or even slowing of the growth of carbon emissions in Kansas is meaningless in the context of global emissions. We in Kansas need to ask why our governor and radical environmentalists like Nancy Jackson are willing to sacrifice the economy of Kansas for this ineffectual goal.

  • Jack Pelton, Leader of Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group

    Earlier this year, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius created the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) and appointed Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton as its leader.

    This was a smart political move by Governor Sebelius. She appears to have put the planning for our state’s energy future in the hands of an independent, skeptical businessman, someone who will be concerned about the bottom line. Someone who won’t be overly influenced by the emotional appeals of environmentalists.

    Kansans need to understand, however, that Jack Pelton may not want to, or be able to, exhibit the independence necessary to formulate sound energy and environmental policy in Kansas.

    In a Wichita Eagle editorial on May 18, 2008, Pelton said he believes that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced: “We are tasked with helping develop a plan to ensure Kansas energy needs are met now and in the future through policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” To me, this sounds as though he’s already formed a conclusion — and one that happens to agree with our governor’s.

    That agreement with Governor Sebelius may not be a coincidence. Other motives may be a factor. That’s because earlier this year, the State of Kansas approved $33 million in incentives for Cessna, with Wichita and Sedgwick County adding another $10 million. The governor signed the legislation in a televised ceremony at Cessna’s facilities in Wichita. This award to Cessna is part of $150 million in aircraft incentives the state authorized.

    (As is often the case with economic development incentives, the state won’t directly give Cessna the money. Instead, it will issue bonds that Cessna will repay with its employee withholding taxes. Confusing maneuvers like this allow governments to say they aren’t actually giving money to companies. Instead, they’re merely issuing bonds which will be repaid, never mind what they’re being repaid with.)

    His company having received a gift like that, how could Pelton turn down the governor’s request to lead KEEP? Given Kathleen Sebelius’ national political ambitions based on her green environmentalist credentials, how can he be expected to do anything that would ruffle her feathers?

    When you combine these factors with the fact that KEEP is being facilitated by The Center for Climate Strategies, Kansans should be very skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations that will emerge from this process.

  • Kansas Climate Profile: Cause For Alarm?

    The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a series of state climate profiles. The Kansas Climate Profile is very interesting to read, especially in light of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and the creation of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or (KEEP).

    One of the things that I’ve not been able to understand is how people believe that what we do in Kansas — like denying a permit for a coal-fired power plant — can have any impact on the global climate. After all, we are just a small part of the planet, and some large countries show no inclination to slow down their production of increasing quantities of greenhouse gases.

    Just how small is the contribution of Kansas to global carbon dioxide emissions? Vanishingly small: “… even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Kansas would be entirely subsumed by rising global emissions in about one month’s time.” So we in Kansas could stop all production of carbon dioxide from all sources, and in one month our sacrifice would be canceled.

    Another interesting item from the report is this: “Future projections indicate that Kansas will be less impacted by rising global temperatures — natural or otherwise — than any other state in the country.”

    As KEEP conducts its meetings that are directed by a group with a clear ideological bent, will it be exposed to information like this?