Images from: National Resources Defense Council blog
Guest essay by Taylor Smith
Last week I attended an Environmental Protection Agency “Public Listening Session” held here in Chicago. I had only been to one other such hearing in the past as a college student, when my professor took myself and the rest of the International Studies class to see a public hearing on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s famous Act 10 legislation.
Public hearings I would soon learn (before I would ironically go on to land my first job in government relations), are not the most thrilling experiences in the world. But in fairness, it’s not like I was expecting much: For basically a whole day, one speaker after another testifies to a panel of government officials about why they support or oppose a certain policy. Usually the speakers are an eclectic mix of industry representatives, activists, academics, students, and even religious leaders.
Although the EPA hearing yielded the same mix of speakers, this time I noticed they were all wearing green Sierra Club “Climate Action Now” shirts.
The reason for this, I would later learn, was that the Sierra Club had mobilized hundreds of activists, transported them via bus (I presume of the fossil-fuel powered kind), prepped their testimonies the night before, and completely dominated the morning speaker slots. (There were several coal industry representatives in the morning, and a few other dissenters, including Heartland Policy Adviser Paul Driessen, who covered his experience here). By the afternoon, the Sierra Club had completely monopolized the speaking time (at least in the room I was in).
After the hearing, everyone was invited to a “Climate Social” held at the Sierra Club’s office with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, and Illinois state Sen. Michael Frerichs.
Now maybe it’s just me, but I felt a slight level of discomfort when I saw a single organization dominate a “public” hearing in the way that they did. I don’t care what the organization is or what they say they stand for, because if their 2011 listed revenue is over $97 million, then you know not all of it could have fallen in their laps from heaven.
Left: NRDC Chicago Staff: David Weiskopf, Blake Korb, Sylvia Garcia-Sadowski. Images from: National Resources Defense Council blog
For example, we know Chesapeake Energy, a large natural gas producer, contributed more than $25 million to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign— the same campaign whose organizers were at the hearing and bused several people down from around the Midwest and prepped their testimonies.
But going back to the policy discussion, two things struck me about the speeches I heard — from both the climate activists, and the few coal-affiliated dissenters:
1) Lots of talk about reducing carbon dioxide, hardly any on reducing temperature. As I wrote to the Baltimore Sun once, the question shouldn’t so much be “How much carbon dioxide can we possibly reduce?” But rather, “How much temperature can we realistically save?” The latter question provides a much clearer picture when assessing exactly how much CO2 reduction would be worth its economic cost. The former doesn’t attach any long-term value to CO2 reduction, as if any CO2 reduction were worth its economic cost. Handy for political expediency — which as anyone who works in government relations knows, is half the political battle.
So why is temperature discussion always ignored? One reason might have to do with Dr. Pat Michaels’ research, which found if U.S. CO2 emissions were to be reduced to zero, the resulting temperature decrease would not be scientifically detectable.
So it should be obvious why many climate activists don’t like discussing temperature reduction relative to reducing CO2. But many speakers from the coal industry also didn’t like discussing temperature, instead discussing how electricity prices will go up or how jobs will be lost. Those points are important. But unless a more concrete value is ascribed to the amount of CO2 that activists say needs to be reduced, it’s always going to be perceived as outweighing any economic cost.
2) China and India. According to Diana Furchtgott-Roth:
Other countries are increasing emissions. China, India, and Germany are expanding coal consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. Global coal use will rise by 1.2 billion tons in five years. “By 2017,” according to a December 2012 IEA report, “coal will come close to surpassing oil as the world’s top energy source.”2 Mr. Obama’s reductions in U.S. emissions, with their associated costs, will just be a drop in the global bucket.
Which leads to two additional key quotes:
Even if rising greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the climate, actions by the United States will not be helpful in the absence of changes by China and India.
and
To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in a less costly manner, America could assist China and India develop shale gas from hydrofracturing and build natural-gas fired plants to reduce their reliance on coal. Or, America could ship coal to China, because U.S. coal burns cleaner than Chinese coal. The majority of China’s coal (54 percent) is bituminous, which has a carbon content ranging from 45 to 86 percent. On the other hand, 47 percent of the U.S.’s coal, a plurality, is subbituminous, which contains a carbon content of only 35 to 45 percent.
But many of the Sierra Club activists opposed both hydrofracturing and nuclear. So what exactly would they support? Short of a blackout?
GunnyGene: “But that implies a reduction in human population, true? ”
That’s the standard assumption. But I’m not so certain of it myself. One of the things about reducing farming back to subsistence style concerns is that there aren’t any combines or tractors. Which means you need more people to work an acre than previously. That means a higher population density in agricultural areas as well as an incentive to have kids. They work for room and board. But it means not just lower pop density in urban areas, but that *there is nothing to do anywhere.* No iPhones, iPods, Bejeweled, and so on. And when you’re dirt bored in unlit evenings, and you need more kids anyways…
About the only guarantee in having a reduction in population track a reduction in human industry is to collective farms. Forcefully, or by choice in various commune experiments that have been done.
Re: the pictures,….. I’ll say it again.
Why are those protesters smiling ?
I thought this was serious, not a feel good photo-op.
They look like they will be surprised when the music stops, and there are no chairs left.
The sooner the better for everyone.
Janice Moore
November 20, 2013 at 4:06 pm
‘Further, before long, most of those well-dressed young protesters will have real jobs and be paying a mortgage and …’
Hi Janice! I hate to say it but I think those protesters are going to have to wait for ‘real jobs’ at least until 2016.
There is no difference between our two political parties. They just argue a different lie for their own political gain.
cn
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
― H.L. Mencken,
I realize how awful this sounds, but lately, the delusions of those who “govern” us are becoming so destructive, so politicized and so disconnected from anything I recognize as reality that I’m not sure anything short of force will stop them. I mean, are we really going to let some bureaucrats at the EPA destroy our economy based on fantasy? Not me…
The train has already left the station regarding the EPA and our government.
I coach chess at 4 different schools here in Indiana and am friends with many of the teachers. My 2nd grade grand daughter was taught that carbon dioxide from humans is pollution in science class last year. The junior high science teachers teach the same thing.
When they get to our local college, the environmental science professor teaches the same thing.
They are being indoctrinated into a religious cult with the brainwashing starting early and continuing thru higher education.
Even in the face of hard evidence and empirical data that contradicts what they were taught, these kids can’t’ recognize it. They would need to be deprogrammed.
It goes beyond that. I was a classmate and friend of Jeff Masters back at the University of Michigan 30+ years ago. Nice guy and extraordinarily bright(better student than me). When you have climate authorities like him in a position to provide expert testimony and opinions for those that are just looking for high priests of global warming religion to push their biased and fraudulent agenda. With this, there is more than enough ammunition to trample on authentic science(scientists) to win the political battle.
I have never lost a debate with an alarmist but the problem is that they always go away believing what they did before hand, often reverting to the “well, even if CO2 isn’t pollution, or global warming isn’t that bad, these actions will make our planet cleaner” response.
Chuck Nolan says:
November 20, 2013 at 6:05 pm
There is no difference between our two political parties. They just argue a different lie for their own political gain.
cn
===========
Hopefully without opening a whole Pandora’s Box,… we elect them.
They give us two choices: bad or worse 🙂
WUWT.
I support energy companies shuting down for as long as the federal government did.
In response to: Larry Siders says: November 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm
“The Sierra Club cares little about pollution. It’s all liberal politics”
There is nothing “liberal” about Sierra Club politics, not even the old fashioned liberal politics of LBJ, or even those of Carters ilk, before Bill Clinton moved the Dems even further leftward. Do not besmirch the respectable label of “liberal” (as a respectable opponent of “conservatives” in American history), especially “classical liberals” of which I remain one, and one who may be a true conservative. You know — limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, equality of opportunity, etc., the American Way.
The Sierra Club has been taken over by died-in-the-wool socialist-communist-farthest left activists. Like most other boards of our environmental organizations, they weaseled their way into control and then pretended they are the mouth pieces. If you checked, most real “environmentalists’ (today one must go back to “conservationist” to have a realistic, scientific perspective) left the Sierra Club years ago, as I did — a once faithful member. Most American citizens do not agree with, in fact, abhor marxist-socialists. Don’t go to their showcases. Instead, protest their frauds.
Obama and his cronies were, are, never will be “liberal”, or even “progressive” in American historical terms. They are out-and-out, died-in-the-wool, communists of the mao-marxist-socialist-and-now-islamist(as they collude with fascism too) variety.
Well said. Back in May 2011 when the New Zealand government was busy instituting it’s Emissions Trading Scheme, I asked the same question of our Minster for Climate Change (yes, we do have a Minister in charge of the climate!). How much will our ETS reduce the global temperature by?
I’d already worked out that New Zealand’s contribution, even assuming the IPCC’s dire predictions were correct, was something like 0.00001 degrees C. The Minister’s official reply had a lot of spin about how climate change is an international problem and we have to do our part etc , etc but did include the statement “Acting alone, the environmental benefit of emissions reductions by New Zealand would be negligible”. I replied that if the benefits of emissions reduction were negligible, then why were we committing the country to such massive costs? Needless to say I didn’t get a response to that one.
The Royal Society did the same sort of thing when they had a two day “love in” to discuss the AR5.
“For example, we know Chesapeake Energy, a large natural gas producer, contributed more than $25 million to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign— the same campaign whose organizers were at the hearing and bused several people down from around the Midwest and prepped their testimonies.”
Warning: truthful, insightful, following-the-money statements like this have the deleterious, reactive effect of making some people ventilate about “communism” and “socialism.” In fact, it happens all the time in these threads.
Hm, missed a word in the t-shirt text. It should have been:
CO2 IS NEEDED FOR GREEN LIFE! for extra punch …
Janice,
then you’d have missed one or two comments … (last one was earlier this week in one of the vulcano posts.) Sometimes work has to be prioritized … 😉
Dear Lil’ Fella from Oz,
What an adorable name. Good answers have been given, but, to answer you directly, in the U.S., “liberal” in the last 30 years or so has come to designate what we used to call “socialist” and even “communist” 60 years ago. They want BIG government to take over just about every aspect of society (via regulations and taxes, mainly). “Liberal” in the Friedrich Hayek classic sense is nearly defunct as a term, here.
As my liberal friend said to me one evening after I said, “I like liberty,” in reference to some pretty tacky (but joyful and full of refreshing enthusiasm) Christmas light displays we’d just walked past: “I like rules. Liberals feel good about themselves by having lots of rules that they obey. And they are control freaks, so, you have to obey them, too!
The two main parties, Republican and Democrat, at the national organization level, are essentially the same, at this time. In principle, the Republicans are for ordered liberty, free markets, strong defense, and the least government necessary for essential services. Democrats, in principle, are “liberal” (see above). In practice, the Democrats and RINO’S (Republicans in Name Only) are promoting confiscatory taxing and heavy regulation of the economy. The Democrats like to style themselves the “democratic” party — they are not. “Tyrannic” would be a far more accurate description.
Hoping that synopsis was helpful,
Janice
********************************************************
Hi, Tom J.! #(:)) Yes, (sigh) I think you’re correct. I thought about that even as I went ahead and posted my comment (anyway, heh). Good point!
Janice
@Brian H. Dag-nabit 😉
Nice article but…. I am not sure if any other comment covers this but here goes- There is not much point in demonising bituminous coal as being high-carbon vs sub-bituminous coal being low-carbon. Bituminous coal contains a lot more energy per tonne than sub-bituminous coal. So you get the same heat by burning less of it. In my neck of the woods the bituminous coal contains fewer contaminants than the sub-bituminous coal (think sulphur and ash). In additition these two broad classes of coal tend to have very different end uses. Bituminous coal is often of the coking variety and is commonly used in steel making. Sub-bituminous coal does not have the necessary qualities so can’t be used in steel making. It tends to be used to fire boilers and electric power stations.
A substantial part of the difference between the two classes of coal comes down to the water content and the volatile content. Sub-bituminous coal tends to have a high inherent-moisture content and this can be as high as 25% of the mass of the coal.
Lil Fella from OZ says: November 20, 2013 at 5:06 pm
pyromancer76 describes it well at 6:36 pm: You know — limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, equality of opportunity, etc., the American Way. – pretty much the opposite of Socialism, Communism and National Socialism (yes, it originated from Bolshevism and still share many “values” with the other left wing ideologies. Leftists tries to push them over to the right wing, as they can’t stand the competition. All summed up, the Communism has cost more lives …). When crossing the pond, it changed political side for some unknown reason, but I suspect it is only over there …
Follow the Money — you make a good point (at 7:02pm today). Bear in mind, though, that the money contribution by Giant Gas may have been for strategic reasons other than simply trying to elbow King Coal out of the market.
I think there is more than one causation (for AGW policy promotion), operating. Some of us think the controlling causation is the socialist control goals of the Democrats and RINOs. Others think it is simply the greed that invigorates the free market at its most virulent. It, as I’m sure you would agree, is a combination of both.
Those who would have Big Government (i.e., socialists) control the energy sector of the economy make Giant Gas’s attempt to influence public policy possible. Thus, I would argue, it is the socialist mindset that is the controlling cause and the root at which we need to direct our efforts for liberty.
@ur momisugly Rob R. (7:37pm) — thank you for that very helpful and relevant information.
@ur momisugly Sasja — glad to know you are doing well, just busy. I didn’t go to those volcano threads… so many threads, so little time!!
I lived thru the 70’s cooling scare (made lots of money shoveling snow as a kid), now they want me to give all that money back (plus) , to put me right back into that climate, now that I’m too old to shovel all that snow ?
Or is there a special climate they have in mind, where the snow/rain/floods/drought etc., are just right.
If there is, I wish they would tell us, then we could plan for it.
It would help to know, for the children’s sake.
We’re governed by the greens now. They are running our nations into the ground as their policy is directed at starving our economies from energy, food and water. Their sustainable and renewable energy policies already have caused thousands of un-nescessary deaths in the poor countries, the bio fuel mandate in the US and the EU is directly linked with the Arab Spring Revolutions that started as a food protest and in the West we saw 24000 additional deaths last winter in the UK due to hypothermia, mostly elderly people who are forced to choose between food or the energy bill. They already have blood on their hands.
As for their core business, protecting the trees, I really wonder what they have to say about Europe’s new bio fuel mandate that orders coal fired power plants to mix 1/3 of coal with 2/3 of wood chips imported from the swamp forests in Georgia.
Let it be clear that the Greens and their policies now have become the worst threat to human civilization of our times and the biggest threat to our biosphere.
If we don’t stop them their policies will quickly become irreversible and the result will be a slaughterhouse that will turn the combined crimes against humanity perpetrated by Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot into a walk in the park.
They are irresponsible morons and we better do something about it.
See CFACT Presentation Warsaw COP 19: http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop19/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=6992&theme=unfccc
Reagan warned us 50 years ago (from Real Science Blog):
Follow the Money says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“Warning: truthful, insightful, following-the-money statements like this have the deleterious, reactive effect of making some people ventilate about “communism” and “socialism.” In fact, it happens all the time in these threads.”
Well tough.
Listening Session? Hah! The only way EPA listens to the American Public is if the NSA is helping. Everybody knows that the NSA is the only agency of the US government that actually listens.