The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) (an industry
coalition organized in 2001 to support the administration’s Energy Task
Force efforts), the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce are hosting a series of state climate change
dialogues in 2008 in Ohio, New
Hampshire, Montana, and North Dakota, with Margo Thorning of the
American Council for Capital Formation, a conservative corporate think
tank. The first such forum was held in Manchester, NH on Wednesday,
March 12.
Jim Rubens, of the
Union of Concerned Scientists attended the event. Below is his story of
what transpired, a Hill Heat exclusive.
The American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce – fronting for coal, oil and the fossil-heavy utilities –
last Wednesday road tested their forum on what they claim are the dire
economic consequences of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. It was
train wreck I am certain they will not want repeated.
First, in response to a letter from 8 utility
CEOs asking
that exaggerations be removed from the Charles River Associates
analysis
forming the basis for the phony projections, lead ExxonMobil-funded
economist Dr Margo
Thorning
announced that no specific impact numbers would be provided. We’d need
to wait to see the new, even more slanted
ACCF-sponsored
study due to be released the next day.
Next, a couple of global warming denialists in the audience asked the
Chamber rep why the nation’s business lobby was buying into the need
for anything at all to be done, given that glaciers are growing
worldwide, Mars is getting colder, etc. The response: the
IPCC report is in, and attacking the science
is no longer politically tenable. Subtext read in the facial
expressions from the dais: we’d love to, but we’re stuck now fear
mongering the economics of an American energy future of stable prices,
domestic job growth, and intact Florida coastlines.
Next, Tufts economist Dr Julie Nelson asked Dr. Thorning whether the
new ACCF-sponsored analysis would be any
better than the CRA version, allowing peer
review, disclosing assumptions, etc, like all the competing 25
climate-economy models which project only very modest impacts. Answer:
an embarrassed no.
Next, yours truly asked Dr. Thorning whether the
ACCF analysis – to correct the
CRA’s failings – would model the costs of
projected warming under the business as usual or baseline scenario at
greater than zero, given that New Hampshire’s $650 million ski
industry will be wiped out by 2100, or would assign a return greater
than zero to stepped-up efficiency and conservation investments, or a
value greater than zero for future energy technology innovation.
Answer: another hang-dog faced no. Given the lack of data, there is no
way to assign any number, she said.
I then asked Dr. Thorning whether it would therefore be fair to
footnote the baseline scenario GDP and
energy cost numbers, with a statement to the effect that the predicted
cost of L-W is high because the baseline number is likely to be low,
in that the cost of global warming under business as usual is greater
than zero. She acknowledged some merit to that before quickly
retreating from the room to work her cell phone.
Recommendations for the three future ACCF
fora: be sure to have credible economists and clean energy and
efficiency experts and developers in the room. Call them on every
false, exaggerated and unsupported statement. Talk about what American
entrepreneurs are doing right now in the states where the fora are
held to make the American economy stronger while reducing the risks of
future climate change. Make sure the media is present to witness it.