NOAA Official Shakes Up the Climate Change Debate

     It was reported yesterday that “a top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims” that the violent weather that has decimated parts of the southern United States are a result of global warming. This news could be a blow to environmentalists who, for years, have warned of the violent storms that will inevitably be brought about by global warming. While some liberals and environmentalists are still maintaining that global warming is the cause of the recent storms, it would appear that the evidence pretty clearly refutes this. Conservatives have, of course, held up these new findings to support the cause of global warming skepticism as liberals have sought to deny or downplay them.

     It’s been interesting to see the ideologues change sides on the issue of science. Suddenly conservatives are championing scientific experts and their infallible research while liberals take up the mantle of skeptics and doubters. While this report isn’t likely to change the global warming debate in the long run, it is producing some amusing responses from climate change pundits. If nothing else, this news is helping to demonstrate how ideologically entrenched both sides are in this debate. When people are picking and choosing which scientific evidence they’ll believe based on how it affects their ideological goals reasoned debate has ceased to exist.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

GOP intransigence on transit funding

As gas prices continue to soar, more and more people are turning to public transportation as an alternative to the gas-eating car.

Yet, in the House budget proposal, Republicans are targeting public transportation for major cuts and seeking to eliminate new high-speed rail funding.  The liberal U.S. PIRG has condemned this strategy, arguing that "with gas prices shooting past $4 a gallon...we need to prioritize transportation projects that save oil, reduce traffic, and create jobs."  Instead, according to the PIRG, Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 12 legislative budget proposal "goes after successful transit and rail programs with a meat ax."

While conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, tend to take the Republican line and generally oppose mass transit funding, centrist policy organizations do seem to support this type of funding.  Martin Wachs of the Rand Corp. has warned of the dangers of cost overruns in large mass transit projects,
but reportedly stated that the benefits of these projects outweigh the negatives.

Mark Muro of the centrist Brookings Institute has called for a "truly merit-based...federal transport program that put(s) transit and highway investments on the same footing."

The debate over public transporation, at least, doesn't appear to be a strictly Republican/Democrat one.  Centrists appear to support public transit funding; but it's the Republicans who may be painting themselves into an ideological corner on this one.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- Please pledge now


David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

In the Long Run, EPA Decision May Do More Harm than Good for Environmentalism

     As budget debates continue in Washington about what and where to cut, the EPA may have just shot itself in the foot. It was announced today that the EPA had ruled to deny Shell Oil the necessary permits to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska. This ruling is set to cost Shell almost 4 billion dollars and the public “an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil”. The ruling, meant to protect a village of less than 300 people 70 miles from the drill site, is already drawing harsh criticism from conservative groups.

     Mike Brownfield of the Heritage Foundation has already taken the opportunity to condemn the decision and call for an expansion of domestic oil production. Conservatives have attacked the EPA decision for its poor justification as well as its likely impact on oil production and gas prices in the future. While it’s no surprise that conservatives tend to oppose the EPA, this new ruling is likely to give them a great deal of momentum in selling the idea to the American people.

     Even liberal groups appear to be anticipating the unpopularity of the decision. While liberals and environmentalists have long been supporters of the EPA and its mission, liberals have been largely quiet about this ruling so far. It seems likely that liberal groups are not willing to waste political capital defending a decision that is likely to draw disdain from an American public that is desperate for some way to lower gas prices soon. Considering the major budget debates still to come, democrats may have decided to be careful about picking their battles and let this issue go. This is a lesson the EPA itself may want to take to heart.

     The Republican budget plan put forth by Paul Ryan has already called for significant defunding of the EPA. If the EPA continues to block oil drilling for dubious justifications, it will only make it harder for liberals to defend the agency to the American people. If the EPA wants to survive it should consider being more open to compromise and take a more moderate stance in the future. If the EPA continues to make such controversial decisions, it likely won’t survive long enough to do any good for its cause in the years to come.  

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Is Geothermal Energy the Future?

 It seems that the use of geothermal energy is on the rise in the United States. Geothermal energy, which produces power from the natural heat in the earth, is being touted by its supporters as the next great leap in energy production. It is being described as cheaper and cleaner than traditional energy sources and more reliable than other green energy sources. It’s not surprising that liberals and environmentalists have already jumped on the geothermal bandwagon.

     From U.S. PIRG to the Center for American Progress, liberal groups have, at one time or another, listed geothermal power as one of the major energy sources of the future which will save us from global warming. It’s not surprising that geothermal energy is getting this support. As far as green energy sources go, geothermal energy appears to be the most efficient and reliable. Even conservatives are acknowledging that geothermal energy could have a place in America’s energy future.

     In the past, Nicolas Loris of the Heritage Foundation has acknowledged that green energy sources like geothermal power “can make a small contribution” to America’s energy needs. However, like many conservatives, Loris has argued that geothermal energy and its green cousins will never produce the massive amounts of energy needed to keep this country running. Loris may have a point.

     While geothermal energy development may be on the rise, we are a long way from production growing to a point where it could have a significant impact on energy consumption in the United States. Furthermore, there are considerable obstacles to expanded geothermal energy production. Experts admit that geothermal sites are “expensive and it's risky to develop”. Until now, geothermal energy producers have overcome these obstacles with a little help from the government and the American taxpayer. Even geothermal proponents have acknowledged that the industry has been able to expand because “federal and state government have put in place laws and policies to really promote clean energy”.

     These obstacles make it unlikely that geothermal energy will grow much more in the near future. Any industry that needs to rely on government support probably isn’t strong enough to sustain itself in the long run. This is especially true now, when the name of the game in Washington is spending cuts and reduced government regulation. In the years ahead, geothermal energy will probably have to sink or swim on its own. The industry certainly seems to have potential, but I won’t be expecting a geothermal plant in my area anytime soon.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Departing from the script -- an update

Is it possible that Republicans and Democrats no longer know what to make of Richard Muller, the Berkelely professor, who reportedly did an about-face on the issue of climate change?

We noted last week that prior to a March 31 congressional hearing on global warming, Muller had been treated as a hero by conservative organizations for his skepticism of global warming.  He had been roundly denounced by liberal organizations for the same reason.

But then Muller appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on March 31 and announced that preliminary results from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project supported a global warming trend.

Since then, liberal commentator Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress, who had called Muller an author of "debunked books" and a "liar" as late as four days before the March 31 hearing, seems to have had nothing further to say about him.

And conservative commentator Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation was blogging as late as March 17 that Muller had exposed left-wing "duplicity" on climate change by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.   Carroll too does not appear to have had anything further to say about Muller since March 31.

In fact, a Google search of "Richard Muller" and "climate change" over the last month turns up relatively little after the March 31 hearing.  It all may go to show that once you depart from your political script, even on scientific issues, people are no longer going to be quite as interested in what you have to say.

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Rising Gas Prices Give Conservatives Political Ammo Against Obama Administration

     As gas prices approach record highs the Obama administration is taking more hits regarding its energy policy. Last month, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour accused the administration of deliberately driving up oil prices as a means of promoting environmental goals such as reducing carbon emissions and increasing the use of hybrid cars. While the Obama administration has denied these charges, there is no denying that the administration has not been a friend of the oil industry and has promoted energy policies (ie the moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico) that have, arguably, helped to drive up gas prices.

     This isn’t the first time the administration has had to deflect charges of this kind. Prior to becoming Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu openly called for a significant increase in gas prices to force Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. While the Obama administration distanced itself from these comments and Chu backpedaled to some degree, the political fallout has lingered over Obama ever since.

     It certainly doesn’t help Obama that the concept of purposefully driving up gas prices has been adopted by some liberals and environmentalists. There is a real debate occurring in some circles right now over whether or not rising gas prices are a good thing for the long term interests of the United States and the world. Unfortunately for President Obama, most Americans don’t see it that way. With many families struggling financially now, few working Americans want to hear that rising gas prices are a good thing. What the average American wants to hear is that the government is doing everything it can to reduce gas prices for the country. Regrettably, this is not the message that is coming out of the White House.

     At the moment, there is no conclusive evidence that Obama supports rising oil prices. Much like the Van Jones fiasco, Obama has distanced himself from the radical comments of his subordinates and has sought to project a politically moderate image. However, at the very least, Obama has once again demonstrated his poor judgment in selecting people for political positions. And while the administration can deny it desires higher gas prices, gas prices are still going up and the administration has failed to take clear, deliberate action to counter this trend. Regardless of Obama’s motives, the reality of rising gas prices coupled with Barbour’s accusations should be a real concern for the President as we approach the 2012 election.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Energy and Environmental Policy Dominate Budget Debates

As the budget battle rages in Congress and a government shutdown looms closer, energy and environmental policy are becoming the central issue in the budget debate. The newly released GOP budget is aimed at cutting government spending and reducing energy prices through a combination of cuts to the EPA and an easing of regulations on domestic energy producers. The proposal also calls for cuts to government funding of energy related research.  All of these cuts have met with great approval among conservatives but are, of course, angering liberals and environmental advocates.

     The Republican proposed budget is the antithesis of the budget President Obama proposed earlier this year. Obama’s budget, which was praised by liberal groups, called for large increases in government funding of clean-energy research and greater regulation on oil and coal producers. These diametrically opposed views of energy policy are making it less likely that a compromise can be reached and a government shutdown prevented.

     Ultimately, Obama and the Democrats are going to have a difficult time selling their proposal to the American people. Boehner and the Republicans have done an excellent job of taking the initiative and shaping the debate. This new budget proposal puts Democrats on the defensive while helping Republicans to appear proactive. Furthermore Republicans took the House of Representatives by running a platform of smaller government and spending cuts. With concern over the poor economy and American debt growing, the American people, for the most part, want to hear that spending will be slashed and taxes will be reduced. The Republican budget captures the sentiments that they ran on and that got them elected.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5