Koch Bros.mount cut-and-paste attack on regional climate initiatives

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fresh off last year’s successful defeat of federal climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, the oil baron Koch brothers and their dirty-energy buddies are now bent on dismantling one of the nation’s last hopes for doing anything about climate change in the near term: regional climate accords. Today, a total of 32 states are active participants or observing members in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, or the Western Climate Initiative.

That number will get a lot smaller if the American Legislative Exchange Council—a D.C.-based conservative advocacy organization funded by Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil, and other oil companies and big corporations—gets its way.

ALEC offers legislative templates to state lawmakers who don’t want the hassle of writing their own conservative bills. Raegan Weber, ALEC’s senior director of public affairs, says the group has produced 800 to 1,000 pieces of so-called “model legislation.” Access to those templates is restricted to legislators who pay $100 for a two-year membership, which makes it difficult to trace a bill’s language back to ALEC.

But thanks to a blog post by a conservative states-rights activist in Florida (and a tidbit in one of ALEC’s own press releases), we can make out at least part of what’s in ALEC’s template for “State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives,” one of the offerings on the group’s environment webpage. And it looks like the template has been getting a lot of use lately.

Language that regurgitates all of the right’s favorite—and in many cases <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-16-koch-group-alec-cut-paste-attack-regional-climate-initiatives/p2">fallacious—anti-cap-and-trade'>http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-16-koch-group-alec-cut-paste-attack-regional-climate-initiatives/p2">fallacious—anti-cap-and-trade talking points has cropped up in nearly identical form in resolutions or bills in at least six states:

WHEREAS, there has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increasing costs of doing business in the State of ______;

WHEREAS, forcing business, industry, and food producers to reduce carbon emissions through government mandates and cap-and-trade policies under consideration for the regional climate initiative will increase the cost of doing business, push companies to do business with other states or nations, and increase consumer costs for electricity, fuel, and food;

WHEREAS, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of cap-and-trade policies will be borne by consumers and will place a disproportionately high burden on poorer families;

WHEREAS, simply reducing carbon emissions in the State of ______ will not have a significant impact on international carbon reduction, especially while countries like China, Russia, Mexico, and India emit an ever-increasing amount of carbon into the atmosphere;

WHEREAS, a tremendous amount of economic growth would be sacrificed for a reduction in carbon emissions that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of CO2;

WHEREAS, no state or nation has enhanced economic opportunities for its citizens or increased Gross Domestic Product through cap and trade or other carbon reduction policies; and

WHEREAS, Europe’s cap and trade system has been undermined by political favoritism, accounting tricks and has failed to achieve the carbon reduction targets,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the legislature of the State of ______ urges the Governor to withdraw [state] from the regional climate initiative.

Last year in Michigan, the language appeared in a resolution [PDF] introduced in the state House of Representatives, demanding that the state drop out of the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.

This year, the language has shown up in resolutions in Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington [PDFs] calling for the states to quit the Western Climate Initiative.

In New Hampshire, it popped up in the “findings” section of a House bill that would repeal the cap-and-trade system established under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The bill’s lead sponsor, state Rep. Richard Barry ®, looked a bit like a dog caught with the family cat in its mouth when he was asked to explain the language at a public hearing; he nervously said that none of the bill’s sponsors had written this particular section, but stopped short of revealing ALEC as the source of the text. That didn’t sit well with Rep. James Garrity ®, chair of the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee, who later explained, “Our committee does not feel that editorials belong in laws.” The matter was resolved by dropping the ALEC text, and the amended bill went on to pass the House.

The New Mexico resolution hasn’t fared so well; it stalled in committee, according to sponsor Rep. Tim Lewis ®. Unlike Barry in New Hampshire, Lewis readily acknowledges that the language in his resolution came from ALEC, but adds, “I am not a member of that group.” A first-term legislator who’s still busy learning the ropes in Santa Fe, Lewis admits he didn’t put much time into examining ALEC’s claims about cap-and-trade. As a teacher, he might be unhappy to learn the copycat text is full of questionable claims (find out just how questionable).

“I don’t mind being an observer in the Western Climate Initiative,” says Lewis, who is proud to support wind and solar power. He says he just worries that implementing cap-and-trade policies could hurt poor families in his state. Sound familiar?

Oregon state Rep. Kim Thatcher ®, sponsor of the resolution in her state, seems to be more thoroughly on board with the Koch brothers’ agenda. An aide to the lawmaker, who spoke on condition of not being named, said Thatcher contacted all the right groups before moving forward with the resolution, including: Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded organization that has been waging a very public assault on regional climate accords (get that story); the Heritage Foundation, recipient of more than $3.3 million in Koch funds from 1997 to 2008; and the Cascade Policy Institute, considered by Koch Industries to be one of the few reputable sources of information on “climate controversies.” For now, the resolution is stuck in committee.

In 2010, Greenpeace published a report about the Koch brothers’ funding of climate-denial groups, and Koch Industries responded by saying, “we believe science—not politicized opinion—must play a central role in the discussion about climate and related policy proposals. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides.”

Can we look forward to an open airing of the ALEC text that’s being surreptitiously slipped into state-level bills and resolutions around the country? And will we see the text corrected so that it is in fact honest and all “politicized opinion” is removed?

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-16-koch-group-alec-cut-paste-attack-regional-climate-initiatives

[mawilson 2,133]

Why do you hate the Koch brothers?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Steven, do you ever post anything that's not regurgitated from far-left wing websites?

Seriously. You post the same ####### I see in my news feed (yeah, i follow left-wing kook sites) and that's all you ever seem to post...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why do you hate the Koch brothers?

Steve hates Koch lovers.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Steven, the US is not going to do anything about climate change. Obama and them Dems made that clear when they did nothing despite an open goal for two years.

Incidentally, the Wisconsin Public Employees Pension fund owns millions of dollars of Georgia Pacific stock. A Koch Bros. company.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steven, the US is not going to do anything about climate change. Obama and them Dems made that clear when they did nothing despite an open goal for two years.

Incidentally, the Wisconsin Public Employees Pension fund owns millions of dollars of Georgia Pacific stock. A Koch Bros. company.

Steven.... PWNED!!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Steve hates Koch suckerslovers.

fixed

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Koch brothers will fight this for awhile but in the end, Wall Street will win this battle. Carbon trading and custody is a great new revenue stream for Wall Street. All the major players either are in place to grab their slice of this pie or are working feverishly to get there. What Wall Street wants, Wall Street gets. And the Koch brothers won't stop it.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The Koch brothers will fight this for awhile but in the end, Wall Street will win this battle. Carbon trading and custody is a great new revenue stream for Wall Street. All the major players either are in place to grab their slice of this pie or are working feverishly to get there. What Wall Street wants, Wall Street gets. And the Koch brothers won't stop it.

Wait, wait, wait.... I thought Stevens argument was that the Koch brothers WERE Wall Street? And if carbon offsets are not mandatory do you really think business will do anything but cursory trading to "look" green? Nope!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wait, wait, wait.... I thought Stevens argument was that the Koch brothers WERE Wall Street? And if carbon offsets are not mandatory do you really think business will do anything but cursory trading to "look" green? Nope!

They are clinging to anything they can, as their dreams of a communal based vegan society, where they can worship the female godhead without hormonal inspired male aggression, fade into oblivion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought Stevens argument was that the Koch brothers WERE Wall Street?

I don't think Steven has actually said any such thing. The fact remains that carbon markets already exist, that they are growing - the carbon market had a value of $32bn in 2006, doubled to $64bn in 2007 and now stands somewhere at $140bn - and that Wall Street is interested in seeing further growth of this revenue and profit opportunity. The major players are all rushing into this space and they will lobby for the required legislation to make this market grow. See, cap and trade is a market based approach and now it's not your commies and hippies fighting for it but the market forces that see a lot of bucks that are to be made. Innovative approaches often forge odd alliances...

Edited March 18, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think Steven has actually said any such thing. The fact remains that carbon markets already exist, that they are growing - the carbon market had a value of $32bn in 2006, doubled to $64bn in 2007 and now stands somewhere at $140bn - and that Wall Street is interested in seeing further growth of this revenue and profit opportunity. The major players are all rushing into this space and they will lobby for the required legislation to make this market grow. See, cap and trade is a market based approach and now it's not your commies and hippies fighting for it but the market forces that see a lot of bucks that are to be made. Innovative approaches often forge odd alliances...

Yep. Wall Street has no political agenda beyond profit. The Koch Bros. come from a long family line of ideologues with their own self-serving agenda.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I don't think Steven has actually said any such thing. The fact remains that carbon markets already exist, that they are growing - the carbon market had a value of $32bn in 2006, doubled to $64bn in 2007 and now stands somewhere at $140bn - and that Wall Street is interested in seeing further growth of this revenue and profit opportunity. The major players are all rushing into this space and they will lobby for the required legislation to make this market grow. See, cap and trade is a market based approach and now it's not your commies and hippies fighting for it but the market forces that see a lot of bucks that are to be made. Innovative approaches often forge odd alliances...

Carbon offsets will never be mandatory. If a company wants to do it voluntarily that is great. Free markets in action. As long as no one is forced to do it by law I am fine with it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Carbon offsets will never be mandatory. If a company wants to do it voluntarily that is great. Free markets in action. As long as no one is forced to do it by law I am fine with it.

Because government shouldn't regulate the market even at the peril of the environment? More Libertarian nonsense.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Because government shouldn't regulate the market even at the peril of the environment? More Libertarian nonsense.

Hey, no cap and tax!!! We fixed GW!!!