Voice For Liberty

Tag: KEEP

  • Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

    Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”

    This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by extension, that our governor isn’t.

    Ms. Holman cites a study showing that green investment in Kansas could add many jobs to our economy. That’s no doubt true. But these jobs have all the characteristics of public works jobs, meaning that for each job created, one is lost somewhere else. That’s because these jobs don’t add to the wealth of Kansas, as we already are producing electricity. These new jobs simply shift Kansas to using a different form of power generation, one that Ms. Holman prefers.

    Now if this shift was necessary to save our planet, that might be one thing. But the consensus behind man-made global warming is not as strong as Ms. Holman claims. And even if true, it might be best to learn to deal with the changing climate rather than try to stop the change.

    Even if global warming is due to man’s activity, there’s very little we in Kansas can do to stop it. As illustrated in the article KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, Kansas is just a tiny speck on the Earth. Other countries overwhelm anything we can do in Kansas:

    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.

    That’s right. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions in Kansas, the growth of emissions in China would very quickly negate our extreme sacrifice.

    That’s the reality of the arithmetic of carbon emissions. But Ms. Holman thinks this is okay.

    One of the comments left in response to Ms. Holman’s editorial argued in favor of solar and wind power and stated “Zero energy cost forever and zero drawdown of the Ogallala [sic] aquifer — what’s not to like?” This comment writer might want to take notice of impending expiration of the wind production tax credit, which gives money to subsidize the production of these two types of power. Without this subsidy, supporters of wind and solar power concede that investment in these forms of energy will likely cease. Furthermore, our local electric utility is asking for a rate increase, in part due to the expensive cost of wind power. See Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire and Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

  • Cap-and-trade harmful to Kansas

    An op-ed in the Wichita Eagle (Amy J. Blankenbiller: Cap-and-trade would be harmful to Kansans) makes the case that some cures for global warming may cause more harm than good.

    The author warns that “we could be heading toward ‘solutions’ that are much more harmful to Kansas consumers and businesses than the environmental benefits they aim to provide.”

    Specifically, prices for the forms of energy that most Americans use — electricity, natural gas, and gasoline — would rise rapidly. If we need any evidence that increases in energy prices are harmful, consider the reaction to a proposal to increase electricity rates in Wichita by a relatively modest amount. (See Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.)

    The important questions: “With Kansas accountable for only 0.25 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions, the real questions become: What impact did we have on global climate change? And at what cost?”

  • Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet: Not an Example of Sarah Palin’s Transparent Government

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work seeking to understand the role of The Center for Climate Strategies in Alaska.

    (The Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet plays the same role there that the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) plays here.)

    In his excellent and informative post Palin, Alaska’s Climate Commission, and (Lack of) Transparency, Paul traces the formation of the climate change panel in Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin and CCS’s involvement in that. At the same time, he illustrates the frustration that those making records requests of government agencies often experience.

    You can also read about CCS’s appointment recommendations. Did CCS also make these recommendations in Kansas? I’d like to know. But as Paul’s article shows, sometimes finding the answer to these questions is difficult and time-consuming.

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Its Heritage

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work looking into the background and affiliations of the Center for Climate Strategies. This is important because CCS is the radical environmentalist group that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is using to run the activities of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    The blog post announcing this work is Center for Climate Strategies in Black & White. The work is ongoing.

  • Kansas Climate Change Mitigation Will Be Costly

    A recent presentation in Kansas revealed that fighting global warming in Kansas will be quite costly, and will harm lower-income families most.

    The Wichita Eagle article Business leaders hear climate talk reports that The National Association of Manufacturers calculated that cap-and-trade proposals before Congress would cost the average Kansas family $304 per month in the form of higher prices for energy. That’s a very large penalty for Kansas families, especially low-income families, to pay to mitigate something that not all scientists agree is a problem.

    Then, even if you agree that global warming is a problem, there’s very little that Kansans can do in light of global factors outside our control. As reported in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, the rate of growth of carbon emissions in China and other countries is so large that it overwhelms any attempt by Kansans to reduce their emissions. Even a complete cessation of carbon emissions by Kansans would quickly be negated by China’s growth. And, China is not willing to take steps to mitigate their output.

    $304 per month, or $3,648 per year, would be a crushing blow to the budgets of many Kansas families. This burden would be on top of many thousands of jobs lost. As reported in Kansas companies put out of business by high fuel costs, the high cost of diesel fuel has caused some trucking companies in Kansas to close, and others have reduced the number of trucks they operate. Those who think that these extra fuel and energy costs can be absorbed by families and the economy with no adverse effects are not being realistic.

    For more information, view the slide presentation here. The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis is an easy-to-read analysis of the cap-and-trade proposal.

  • 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.

  • 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.