Schweitzer rejects sound science; media takes a nap
Last week, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study of the economic impacts of the cap and trade system envisioned in the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation. Even in the more conservative estimations, America (and Montana) will see a massive loss of jobs and wealth if Lieberman-Warner becomes law.
We read a couple of weeks ago about Republicans on the Environmental Quality Council questioning climate change science, but now it seems that the Schweitzer administration has it's collective head deeply embedded in the sand as well in their outright rejection of a scientifically sound economic study. Here's what Schweitzer senior advisor Eric Stern had to say about the study
"They've been denying climate change is happening for so long, and now they're trying anything they can to scare people. This is a petroleum industry front group that is literally like a cigarette company promoting a study that says smoking is good for you."
The National Association of Manufacturers took umbrage at Mr. Stern's harsh words, likening his response to "something a snot-nosed kid would say, to come back with an insult instead of acknowledging legitimate concerns."
The NAM blog post went on to rightly point out that this was an especially troubling position from the Schweitzer administration because Montana's potential to be an energy producing state and the fact that "Gov. Brian Schweitzer fancies himself an advocate of coal." News to NAM: The Gov. fancies himself a lot of things, very few of which have a basis in reality.
The model (called the National Energy Modeling System, or NEMS) used for the study at the center of this controversy is not an invention by NAM or ACCF, but was developed by the US Energy Information System. Two datasets were inputted, one that estimated a "high cost scenario" and the other a "low cost scenario." The study can be accessed here.
Even the low-cost scenario has some pretty dire predictions for Montana. It estimates that by 2030 we'd lose between 11,000 and 15,000 jobs; lose between $1.35 billion and $1.59 billion in gross state product; and would cost each Montana household between $2,918 and $5,321 annually.
Those aren't fun numbers, especially for a governor who just spent a few months and a lot of money to develop 54 recommendations about climate change (one of which was to impose a cap and trade system in Montana). Most of those recommendations will have a negative economic impact on Montana, but conveniently, only a cursory economic analysis was done by the Governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee. It's no wonder the Gov is a little defensive when presented with an economic analysis that comes out so negative for his agenda.
So while the Montana media gets all wound up about a few Republican legislators even raising the prospect that the science behind climate change might be a little suspect, the real story about the unknown economic impacts gets overlooked. Not to mention that when Republicans blow off scientific evidence it makes big headlines, but when Gov Schweitzer does it, there's barely a splash.
Our advice to Republican legislators on the EQC--stop quibbling about whether or not climate change is man-made, and start pointing out the enormous cost (in both dollars and jobs) of the plan Governor Schweiter's committee has laid out.
Carter
12 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
That's funny, my broker tells me that I've two easy money options right now: China or clean-tech. I chose keep my money at home and invest in some of the stronger companies investing in clean technology (including a few in the state). So who am I to believe, a well regarded Montana broker who predicts some serious long term growth or a K Street lobbying outfit with an agenda.
Last I checked, farmers all around Montana were tap dancing all the way to the bank due to the newfound interest alternative fuels is generating for their grains. People in Butte are pretty happy about new manufacturing jobs building wind turbines in their neck of the woods.
And for the study? As far as I can tell, energy costs seem to be the big doom and gloom news in the report for Montana. We all know who we've got to thank for that mess: a man who also resides on K Street now, former Gov. Mark Racicot.
You're nothing if not reliable, Clearwater. First of all, I'm not seeing a connection between what your stock broker is advising and the economic downturn we can expect from cap and trade legislation. Growth in green industry jobs are factored into the NAM/ACCF report; even when you add that growth to a downturn in other sectors, you still get a negative net effect.
Your broker is right on, clean-tech is projected to be a growing industry. Part of that is based on speculation that legislation like cap and trade is going to be a veritable boondoggle for enviro-industry; a lot of people are going to make a whole heap of money off the cap and trade system (guess where that money comes from...consumers). You've got a good broker; he gets the joke.
Farmers dancing to the bank? Guess how many ethanol and/or bio-diesel plants have gone online during the Schweitzer administration: 0. The recent increases in farm commodity prices has a lot more to do with skyrocketing fuel costs than it does with the surge in demand for grain for alternative fuels. And farmer input prices are also going up, so those commodity prices do not translate into big profits.
And as for the wind turbines in Butte, what exactly does that have to do with the cap and trade legislation. Are you trying to say that if you oppose cap and trade, you can't be for wind power? That doesn't make any sense. We've got an energy shortage (thus the high prices) and we should be looking for any way possible to increase energy production, even with higher-cost forms of energy like wind power. And good luck replacing coal-fired generation with wind.
And you're absolutely right, Mark Racicot is personally responsible for oil prices to top $100 per barrel. Are you for real?
But if you want to look at electricity price increases of late, please look no further than Governor Schweitzer's green energy mandate in the electricity portfolio. The more wind power the utilities are forced to buy, the more backup firming power they have to buy in addition, which has done more to increase electricity prices than anything else. And guess what, we're still operating in a regulated environment - the PSC regulates utility prices. Please put that tired "deregulation" red herring to rest unless you've got some actual arguments to back it up.
Thanks for playing though Clearwater.
Sound science? One has to wonder what form this "science" took. Did it come from the mouth of a 900 foot tall Jesus? Were they hearing voices? Did they read something on a tortilla? Were their tin-foil hats on too tight?
Your doom and gloom end-of-the world predictions are based on "science" funded by those set to gain financially from the studies. Every third grader knows you need independent research to make good decisions.
Liesa - Did you read the report? Again, the model they used was the commonly-used Energy Information Administration NEMs model. But I get it, we reject any scientific evidence that doesn't conform to our political agenda, whether that's information about climate or economics.
You point out that those who funded this report are set to gain financially from the studies. Isn't that the exact same argument you should be making against some of the proponents of climate change research? There are a lot of people that are set to gain financially from cap and trade, or the Governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee Recommendations, etc. I take it you consider their research "independent" regardless of their own financial bias.
Let's have an honest debate on this issue. Let's judge this report based on it's merit, not based on who financed it. Go back and read the report and challenge it on it's content and you'll sound a lot more credible.
Several points are once again omitted by The Hardliner Blog and mainstream media. Stern is right, ACCF is a front group for the Petroleum industry. Case and point is the over $1.6 million donate by none other than Exxon Mobile to ACCF for 'studies'. Followed by the fact that ACCF's board is comprised of Petroleum industry interests, hardly a impartial group. Keynote speaker Thorning was a Bush appointee, while Bryan Just works for the American Petroleum Institute, sounds like a big tobacco tactic to me. And why not it worked for them for 30 years. Now let's actually look at the economic model used by ACCF. This model excludes two vitally important factors: negative externalities associated with a warmer climate in Montana and market adaptations and growth created by a new clean energy sector. Apparently, neither ACCF nor The Hardliner would like to discuss the ramifications of a warmer climate on our farmers, ranchers, irrigatior's, sportsman, and tourism industry. MSU Ag/Econ study estimates a 48% reduction in agricultural production, Montana's number one industry. UM economist Tom Power's clarifies these omissions in the gazette story yet The Hardliner ignores the non-industry financed economist. Pushing fallacy as fact just exemplifies how irrelevant this blog has become.
Revisionist (what an apt name),
I think I've already made my point that just because this study is funded by oil interests doesn't make it invalid. The content of the study is more important than its backers. There are dozens of studies funded by climate change groups who will financially benefit from things like cap and trade legislation, and I take it that you think their credibility is just fine. Let's not be hypocritical.
You're right on one point, this study does not take into account the "negative externalities associated with a warmer climate in Montana." We could argue about just what those impacts are, but suffice it to say a warmer climate will have some measure of negative impact on Montana. I'm willing to agree with you on that point, but I don't agree that that invalidates this study.
You're incorrect in saying, however, that the study does not take into account "market adaptations and growth created by a new clean energy sector." It actually does take those into account.
You have a very cynical view, but your comments are exactly the type of debate we should be having in Montana right now. We should be weighing the costs of doing nothing on climate change (like the estimated 48% reduction in ag production) against the costs of doing drastic things like Lieberman-Warner. That's the only way we're going to find a middle ground. But the tone in your post mirrors that of the Democrats on the EQC and makes you seem extremely unwilling to actually have an honest discussion about these issues.
Finally, your last statement troubles me: "Pushing fallacy as fact..." That's a serious charge that I would challenge you to back up. Please point to one fact that I presented that is false.
Fallacy as fact = "we'd lose between 11,000 and 15,000 jobs; lose between $1.35 billion and $1.59 billion in gross state product; and would cost each Montana household between $2,918 and $5,321." Smoking mirrors, Carter, smoking mirrors.
My advice to Republicans on EQC and to you, Carter, would be to leaders and entrepreneurs in the new age that is going to excel in an emerging cap and trade carbon economy or step aside and watch it pass you by.
Revisionist, you can choose not to believe the numbers in this study, but I just hope you remember your position next time you're tempted to criticize Republicans on the EQC when they question climate change science.
Ignoring information that doesn't fit your political agenda is just voluntary ignorance.
Revisionist,
The U.N. climate study was packed with political appointees with an agenda. How biased do you rate the scientists?
The U.N. has a vested interest in global warming, does this make their study biased?
From http://www.news.com/2300-11395_3-6235636-1.html?tag=nefd.also
March 26, 2008 7:04 AM PDT
"Scientists are citing 'rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica' as the cause of an initial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. The damage got started at the end of February when an iceberg dropped off and triggered the 'runaway disintegration' of a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf."
from: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/12/record-antarctic-ice-levels-ignored-media
Record high ice cover in Antarctica.
Viola;
Neither your article or mine prove anything was caused by man.
Viola:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm
500 scientists,... oh my! Guess there is NO concensus.