It is interesting how the search engines change from day to
day. Today not much out there about ALEC
educational policies – cause people actually believe that ALEC has changed
their stance – oh what fools those mortals be.
Anyway – today’s trending topic is climate.
From Bernie Sanders webpage this morning:
Renewable Energy Mandates The
Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank skeptical of climate change
science, has joined with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council
to write model legislation aimed at reversing state renewable energy mandates
across the country, the Washington Post repoted [sic].
So let’s back up and look at these two bastions of climate
denial.
First from the leaked documents from the Heartland – last
year:
The Heartland
2012
FUNDRAISING PLAN
B. Nongovernmental International Panel
on Climate Change (NIPCC) Heartland sponsors the Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of scientists who
write and speak out on climate change. Heartland
pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of
editions of Climate Change Reconsidered, the most comprehensive and authoritative
rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. Another $88,000 is
earmarked for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing,
expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.
Then on to ALEC’s ongoing climate change battle for their
fossil fuel, free-market, corporate profit sector members.
ALEC has been writing about climate change since the first
fossil fuel corporate profit sector member wrote them a $50,000 check. ALEC’s goal is to service those fossil fuel
ALEC corporate profit sector members.
ALEC is prolific when it comes to this subject – so prolific that a
person would need to write a tome to even touch on just a few of the key points
that ALEC spouts as “climate truth”. I
would suggest reading a CMD article that was published last year by Jill
Richardson with lots of links.
It’s also very important for the reader to understand that
ALEC sends out this propaganda on a monthly basis to ALEC legislators – who
believe it – without questioning it. I
guess our job to makes ALEC legislators start questioning
this – if they want to keep their “public service” jobs. (But then ALEC wants to privatize all public
services/goods – so maybe ALEC legislators don’t really care about “public
service”.)
In 1995 ALEC published this statement in their
RESOLUTION ON ALTERNATIVE FUEL
WHEREAS, The free market, not
government mandates, works best in producing environmentally responsible,
affordable conventional and alternative fuels;
AND unfortunately – ALEC legislators truly believe that.
ALEC writes a lot of resolutions – most of them in
opposition of something – ‘cause ALEC doesn’t like much of anything in the United States –
except their corporate profit sector members.
First – some ALEC “opposition resolution” from 2007 that
speaks volumes (my emphasis), please read it:
American
Legislative Exchange Council
Resolution
in Opposition to EPA’s Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources
Whereas, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court
found in a 5-4 decision that Massachusetts
had been harmed by global warming, that EPA has the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases under § 202 of the Clean Air Act, and that EPA has failed to justify
its decision to not already regulate greenhouse gases;
Whereas, the alleged harms found by
the Supreme Court cannot reasonably be “anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare”1 as required by § 202 of the Clean Air Act (§ 202 regulates emissions
from new vehicles):
The
rise in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases is not linked to a decline in welfare
or public health—indeed, quite the opposite is true. While carbon dioxide levels
have risen from 0.03 percent of the earth’s atmosphere in pre-industrial times
to 0.04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere today,2 temperatures have risen just
1°F since the end of the Little Ice Age a little over 100 years ago. During the
warming of the past 100 years, global GDP has increased 18-fold, average life span
doubled, and per capita food supplies increased even though population almost
quadrupled.
The Supreme Court cited a “precipitate
rise in sea levels”3 as a harm caused by an increase in greenhouse gas levels. However, global sea level is rising at a
pace of less than 6 inches per century, which is consistent with the rate of
sea level rise that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age
epoch 15,000 years ago. Moreover, the rate of sea level rise has been
decreasing during the past 50 years.4 Furthermore, in Massachusetts
and other places in the United
States it is difficult to discern a threat
to public health or welfare from sea level rise. The value of waterfront real estate has dramatically increased, even as
sea level has risen.
The
Supreme Court stated that “rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity
of hurricanes.” However, scientists at the National Hurricane
Center (NHC) have documented that hurricane activity
is no higher now than in decades past. “[W]e
don’t see any new trend. There’s no link to global warming that you can see at
all,” NHC hurricane expert Chris Landsea reports.5 Also, the latest computer
models show global warming will cause more wind shear, which restricts the
formation of hurricanes.6 Furthermore, November 2006, the World Meteorological
Association released a statement reflecting their consensus opinion on the
possible link between hurricanes and global warming. They stated that “no firm conclusions could be made on this point” and
that “no individual tropical cyclone [hurricane] can be directly attributed to
climate change.” 7
The
Supreme Court cited “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover
extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes”as harms. It is difficult to
see how those events “endanger public health or welfare” as required
by §202 of the Clean Air Act. Consider the opposite—advancing glaciers, increase
in snow-cover extent, later spring melting of rivers and lakes. Those all sound
like greater dangers to public welfare.
The
warming temperatures and increased precipitation of the 20th century have resulted
in moister soil and less frequent and less severe drought than in centuries past.9
Scientists have likened the warmer, moister conditions of the 20th century to “literally
becoming more like a garderner’s [sic] greenhouse.”
Therefore, be it resolved that because
of the aforementioned lack of evidence that human-caused emissions of
greenhouse gases will “endanger public health or welfare” as required by §202
of the Clean Air Act, the American Legislative Exchange Council urges EPA to
not make an endangerment finding under § 202 of the Clean Air Act and regulate greenhouse
gases from mobile sources.
Be it further resolved that that until
and unless Congress enacts new statutory language clarifying and specifying
EPA’s legal and regulatory obligations with respect to carbon dioxide under the
Clean Air Act, EPA should refrain from
further deliberations on a possible endangerment finding regarding carbon
dioxide regulation under § 202 of the Clean Air Act.
I really couldn't comment on each and every paragraph - cause this resolution is just so self-explanatory of the ALEC "the world is flat" mentality on climate.
And ALEC legislators believe and spew this stuff every
chance they can
Tennessee State Representative Susan
Lynn, "State Legislators see how our constituents are suffering with fear
of losing their job, unemployment, and the unstable economy, now the federal
government wants to enact Low Carbon Fuel Standards which would further hurt consumers
and do nothing to lower actual carbon emissions."
Let's see "losing jobs, unemployment, unstable economy"
trumps
breathing, death, flooding, hurricanes, drought, sunami's
I guess in my little corner of the world - if I can't breathe or eat, I die - focusing on unemployment and losing a job seem pretty myopic when it comes to climate change.
.
And just a couple years ago – the ALEC Energy Task Force
decided to re-write their mission and – hey folks – they are still sticking to
the ALEC historical “the world is flat”
scenarios when it comes to climate.
2011
ALEC
Energy Principles
Mission: To define a comprehensive
strategy for energy security, production, and distribution in the states
consistent with the Jeffersonian principles of free markets and federalism.
Notice how individual freedom is no longer a part of "the ALEC" focus. Just the free-market and making
sure the states control climate policies.
Global
Climate Change is Inevitable. Climate change is a historical phenomenon and the
debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions.
ALEC will continue to monitor the issue and support the use of sound science to
guide policy, but .ALEC will also incorporate economic and political realism. Unilateral efforts
by the United States or
regions within the United
States will not significantly decrease
carbon emissions globally, and international efforts to decrease emissions
have proven politically infeasible and unenforceable. Policy makers in most
cases are not willing to inflict economic harm on their citizens with no real
benefit.
So if the US
can’t do it – by themselves – then ignore it.
Nothing else matters – there is no world or countries –
outside “the world is flat” beliefs of ALEC members.
ALEC
discourages impractical visionary goals that ignore economic
reality
Yeh – the economic realities of ALEC’s bank account – funded
by fossil fuel ALEC corporate profit sector members.
ALEC
Supports Free Markets. ALEC supports
free markets because markets are more effective than
onerous regulation at lead to achieving optimal economic and environmental
outcomes better policy outcomes than onerous regulation. lead to
better policy outcomes than onerous regulation. America’s economy is becoming more
energy efficient and less carbon intensive, not because of regulation, but
because it saves money to be energy efficient. Free markets in energy produce
more options, more energy, lower prices, and less economic disruptions. Free
markets will not necessarily produce the vision of a green economy desired by
supporters of government intervention are not perfect, are not perfect. but
they will produce the best outcome among realistic alternatives.
Can’t believe they believe this crap enough to put it in
writing.
Give me a break – yeh, like Exxon, Koch, Shell, Mobil give a
damn about anything other than corporate profits.
NOT!
And as a reminder - the "free-market" can not exist while AL:EC is manipulating legislation to benefit the "free market". The American Legislative Exchange council is kinda dumb that way.
Federalism: The federal government must allow states to develop their
own approaches to energy policy based on their resources and demand. Misguided federal
restrictions that ignore regional and local realities impose costs
that are beyond the control of those whom they most affect. States know how
best to utilize their land and natural resources, and their role in doing so
must be preserved.
Yeh – like I want Mississippi
or Alabama
deciding what contributes to climate change or what does not.
So here’s the million
dollar question.
Can climate change be
stopped?
2002
AMERICAN
LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL The State Factor: Global Warming and the Kyoto
Protocol has been published by the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC), Energy, Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture
Task
Force,
VI.
Can It Be Stopped?
No known mechanism can stop global warming.
It is clearly politically untenable to
impose grave economic damage in return for no detectable environmental
change—even if one assumed that global warming was a terrible threat.
THAT is the climate change philosophy that ALEC have been
indoctrinating ALEC legislators with for over ten years.
And the next million dollar question.
Why would the American Legislative Exchange Council take
this extremist climate change position – for their corporate profit sector
members, of course.
2004
Sons of Kyoto:
Greenhouse Gas Regulations in the States has been published by the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
This is one of the first examples of
legislated environmental coercion under the climate change agenda that seeks to remove
monies from tax-paying, private sector profit centers, to finance a
new industry that will not serve as a revenue source for the state general
fund.
They forgot one word in that phrase - probably on
purpose
“remove monies from
ALEC private sector profit sectors”
No comments:
Post a Comment