Posted by Dennis Herrick on August 22, 2008 at 17:58:55:
Geoffrey Lawrence: NH climate task force would trample individual rights
17 hours, 50 minutes ago
Residents of New Hampshire could soon have their ability to choose how they live, how they travel and what they buy taken away from them.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) is currently considering a large basket of costly new taxes, subsidies and regulations designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. They include statewide restrictions on zoning, housing development, energy use, industrial processes and transportation.
Last December, Gov. John Lynch created the New Hampshire Climate Change Policy Task Force to work in conjunction with DES to develop policy options designed to address global warming. The DES, in turn, hired a global warming alarmist group called Carbon Solutions New England (CSNE) to serve as a technical consultant to the task force on scientific and policy issues related to global warming.
Click for Editorials & Op-EdsCSNE writes on its Web site that "we must achieve an urgent and unprecedented level of carbon dioxide emission reduction over the next decade . . . addressing the interdependent issues of energy and climate requires a transformational response." This transformation envisions the state restricting personal freedom in an effort to coerce individuals into making the "right" decisions as interpreted by the state.
Even more distressing is that Cameron Wake, who represents multiple organizations and is CSNE's director, has monopolized the information that is presented to the task force. Wake has also presented material in conjunction with a related organization called Clean Air-Cool Planet (where he is identified as "chief scientist") and on behalf of the University of New Hampshire's Climate Change Research Center, where he holds a full-time position.
The task force has neither heard testimony nor been presented any evidence that contradicts the viewpoints held by CSNE. As one official document states, CSNE is to "inform and support the development of technical and policy consensus." Allowing for open and honest debate before the task force would certainly not generate the consensus sought by these alarmist advocates, as CSNE has been allowed to set the agenda and control the process. The executive branch has effectively given them carte blanche to develop their own policies that are designed to address their foregone conclusions.
One policy being considered would dramatically increase the proportion of land that is state owned in order to prohibit development on that land. The very purpose of this would simply be to force individuals onto smaller plots of land and into smaller homes.
Other policies under consideration include: taxing individuals for each pound of trash they produce; imposing higher automotive registration and insurance rates on individuals who drive more; increasing gasoline taxes; reducing the availability of parking; and establishing "Residential Behavior Change Programs" that would employ community networks to intimidate individuals into "making sustained, socially beneficial changes at the household level."
According to official DES documents, "behavioral change strategies that target the root causes of climate change inaction should be employed through a comprehensive system of outreach activities that do not rely on information-based campaigns."
What benefit might Granite Staters reasonably expect to receive in exchange for their freedom? Realistically, they should expect these policies to have no effect at all on global warming. Thomas Wigley, a well-known climatologist who served as an adviser to Al Gore, has concluded that a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale (in line with the Kyoto Protocol) would have no measurable effect on temperature over the next century. If the entire world could have no measurable effect, it is absurd to presume that New Hampshire could have any effect on temperature by acting alone.
Control of public policy in New Hampshire is under siege from environmental extremists who care little for individual rights. The policies likely to be proposed by the Climate Change Policy Task Force would lay the foundation for a carbon police state in New Hampshire. Granite Staters should be extremely skeptical of any policy proposals to come out of this task force because executive branch officials certainly haven't been.
Geoffrey Lawrence is a research analyst for Climate Strategies Watch, a free-market, limited-government project that assesses global warming commissions in the states.
YOUR COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.
NOTE: If you have read this article before, you may not be seeing the newest comments. Press F5. Or click "Refresh" or "Reload" at the top of this page while holding down Ctrl. All approved postings will appear.
Dan Brent,please spare us.
All well-informed people know of the dangers of politically driven junk science.
And they know it,and will reject it,when they see it.
Here's a clue Dan.Man-made Global warming,man-made climate change(and hope?Your not,by chance, an apostle of the Messiah,are you Dan?) call it what you will,is,at best,not a certainty.At worst,it is a blatent and shameless attempt to control a free peoples lives.
Remember,Dan,all the other doom and gloom postulations of our recent past?
What ever happened to those?
Dan,perhaps,and not to be overly blunt,you could ball-up your "CONSENSUS"and stick it where the Sun(that has not a thing to do with anything,I'm sure)don't shine.
- Mike P., Manchester
I find it interesting that those letter writers that attack this opinion piece attack the funding and out of state connections to the writer. Am I to assume that there are no liberal groups funding Carbon Solutions New England or Clean Air-Cool Planet? Are all their advisors local scientists?
As usual, these objectors do not address the main concerns of the opinion piece, one sided testimony and the ability to set public policy without debate. The big debate today is not what to do about global warming (climate change) but whether global warming exists. Many notable scientists around the world have changed their positions from supporting global warming theory to being skeptical of global warming. The idea that there is scientific consensus that global warming exists is pure bunk.
In the US, the ten hottest years in the last 100+ years have occurred in five different decades. 1934 was the hottest year on record. Global cooling has been the story for the last eight years. Scientists think that a combination of lower activity of the sun and a change in northern Pacific Ocean circulation are the causes of this recent cooling. The global climate models that ‘predict’ global warming are modified on a continual basis to allow them to match what has already occurred. Urban growth has affected NOAA’s weather monitoring stations so fudge factors are used to draw long term conclusions from the data. The sad truth is that we do not yet understand the drivers for climate change, and it will take many years before we do.
With all these climate uncertainties, and the economic certainty that new state regulations will be costly, why not let the markets sort this out? The high cost of gasoline has had the immediate effect of improving the average fuel economy. High heating costs will result in smaller homes. Environmentalists were responsible for ruining the nuclear energy industry; don’t let them ruin the few freedoms we have left in New Hampshire.
- Richard Waldron, Kensington
Peter S., "What the hell is wrong with people(?)...(Where would you like me to start? I could go on and on.)....maybe more people should read the Bill of Rights...(That's the first thing wrong,with far to many of them.They have not bothered to read,or at least understand the Founding Documents.)
Television is much more interesting.It's got alot of pretty,flashing colors,dude. ;o)
People can not be persuaded to abandon their religion,and make no mistake about it,many environmentalists are of the Pagan(nature worship) religion.I personally,if not regretfully ,know a few myself.
Well-intentioned,misguided dupes will be the ruin of this nation.We,the believers in what the Founders gave us,can only hope to be long dead when the tipping point is reached.
- Mike P., Manchester
Two important facts, (scientifically proven facts mind you), have been overlooked or misrepresented.
First, 90+% of the air polution in New Hampshire comes from out of state. Regulating us doesn't solve that problem.
Second, the notion that humans are responsible for ANY climate change is pure political b.s. aimed at creating more big government.
Be smart NH. Throw these bums and thier big government plans out of office.
- AJ, Windham
While some claim there is a scientific consensus and others try to bring up the tired argument of junk science debunking GW, here are some facts to consider.
The US already leads the world in both energy efficiency per unit of GDP and control of CO2 emissions. According to the Index of Leading Economic Indicators, US emissions grew by 6.6% from 1997-2004 vs. 18% for the world as a whole and 21.1% for those nations who signed the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases. WE DID NOT REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREACRACY TO TAX AND REGULATE IN ORDER TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND THE COUNTRIES WHO DID SIGN THE PROTOCOL FAILED MISERABLY.
Exxon funded some groups to poke holes in the GW theory to the tune of $21 million. Al Gore joined a venture capital group Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers right before they announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technologies firms called the Green Growth Fund. The group announced another $700 million to be invested in green tech start up firms. If GW wasn't a threat, those investments would stink so Gore just launched a $300 million ad campaign to convince us all it is a threat.
31,072 American Scientists signed a petition rejecting the notion of humanity causing GW. At one point, the scientific community's consensus that the earth was flat was pretty much taken as gospel.
By all means let the markets dictate the future of our energy needs and supplies, but if you believe some small group of elites can tell the markets what is better and more efficient than you are advocating a redistribution of wealth. If you feel strongly in protecting the environment than do things in your own life to help the environment. Believing the government is the answer to this issue disregards the facts of the matter.
- Kyle, Bedford
Thomas, it is amazing to me how people like you refer to scientists as snake oil salesman when they come up with a finding that displeases you, but yet you continue to take advantage of technology such as the computer that you used to share your ill-informed opinion. Be sure to tell the hospital that you don't believe in that science mumbo-jumbo next time you have to have a procedure done.
- Dan Brent, Manchester
The bottom line is that most "experts" on the subject of global warming can't, with any accuracy, predict next week's weather - never mind the next century's. Furthermore, all historical reference points are subject to interpretation up to the time actual recording commenced. Any jumping off a bridge either for or against comes with the hefty bag of unintended consequences. No matter where the writer lives or which wire services picks it up, outstanding logic suggests that one state alone will have minimal impact - if any. Should people do more to conserve, recycle, be more green - of course. But, should government be mandating it? Maybe we should ask Justice Souter keeping in mind Kelo.
- R, Raymond
Ugh, this is some misleading crap. The scientific CONSENSUS is that most of the warming that the Earth has undergone over the last 50 years is directly attributable to human influence. Yes, you have managed to locate a dissenting opinion...good for you! There are also dissenting opinions about Quantum Mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science.
All of the policies listed by the author are "under consideration", meaning that some/most will likely be refined and/or discarded. Also, notice that the descr1ptions of all of these policies are the author's interpretation, not quoted directly from the CSNE. For example: "that would employ community networks to intimidate individuals" was the author's creation, intentionally worded to shock and instill fear. Anything that is not quoted directly from the CSNE in the above article should be taken with a grain of salt, as it inherently has a considerable amount of interpretive spin.
- Dan Brent, Manchester
Well, New Hampshire you asked for - you got it. In 2006, the voters threw a hissy fit and elected a bunch of nutcases at the state level. Now, voters are certainly entitled to do that. However, you usually get just one election cycle to fix your error. This next cycle (2008) is your only chance to save this state from these people. If they're in office for longer, they learn how pass laws that will make the damage impossible to undo.
- Paul, Fremont
This Neo-Marxist gov't program is nothing but justified fascism, pure and simple. Much like those institutionalized “AIDS task forces” awhile back, which did nothing but scare people against a non-threat, the CSNE is trying to scare us into preserving the environment. Their “facts” aren’t based on any intellectual basis. Their "arguments" are as weak as a Toyota Prius engine. And their “evidence” is like comparing apples to oranges, which doesn’t matter anyways because they’re probably eating arugula.
In short, don’t listen to these snake-oil scientists who try to scam us into thinking that we’re affecting the climate. There will probably be litters of brain-dead Kool-Aid drinkers who will believe the CSNE and their money-making scheme, but I like to think that I’m smarter than that. I’m a thinker, not a believer.
- Thomas, Manchester
Before buying Mr. Lawrence's wild alarmism, note that he and Climate Strategies Watch are sponsored and funded by Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has long played a lead role in promoting junk science intended to discredit published climate science. CEI is funded by, among others, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. The purpose behind Mr. Lawrence's op-edit is to promote continued American dependency on oil, about half of our imports of which now come from nations hostile to our interests. Increased drilling will make only a marginal difference in our dependence on hostile nations. If you like what Russia just did in Georgia, do nothing to replace oil dependancy with clean, domestic energy sources.
- Jim Rubens, Etna
Hmm.. You New Hampshire folks should take a look where else Mr. Lawrence is writing. We got a letter from him today in the Kansas City Star. He is from North Carolina - kind of far away don't you think to be concerned about your welfare ? But you would not know that from his signature or disclosure. Do you think he gets funding from the tobacco folks as well to try to convince us that smoking is good for us ? ( my father and grandmother both died in the last 18 months from Cancer so I am surprised when people try to hide why they are telling us .... global warming is good for you....
- robert r, kansas city
Hey Rob from Newmarket, try coming to my house and regulating me and see what happens. This is America not Nazi Germany.
"and establishing "Residential Behavior Change Programs" that would employ community networks to intimidate individuals into "making sustained, socially beneficial changes at the household level."
I'd like to see the look on their faces if they showed up at my house to intimidate me, they would not be walking away I can tell you that....
What the hell is wrong with people....maybe more people should read the Bill Of Rights.....
- Peter S., Manchester
Robert,
Who decides what is irresponsible here? There are many things that are irresponsible to most of us (the majority), but these kinds of programs take a minority view and mandate it on the majority in order to coerce them into acting as they feel is right.
Sounds an awful lot like a fascism to me, something usually conservatives are accused of.
Thank you for your opinion, but I think you will find you are in the minority here and that individual freedom (even to be stupid) is a right guaranteed by God, and can not be taken by the government (see the Constitution).
- Aaron, New Boston
Well said, but don't forget the Democrat's primary directive of taxing us more! This is unproven science proffered up as another canard to grab more of our money – not to mention our freedoms, and the first freedom these people want to take is the right to dissent.
- Steven, Swanzey
Well on the other hand most of the things we SHOULD do to be responsible about the environment we COULD do voluntarily.
If people insist on being irresponsible, then yes they are going to HAVE to be regulated. Take away high horsepower cars, prevent home owners from running toxic wood stoves, tax per mileage, it all sounds good to me!
Too bad for the Ugly Americans, hey they can still eat until they are each seventy-five pounds overweight, that should console them!
- Robert Emerson, Newmarket
Eco-Marxists like the CSNE couldn't care less that humanity's measly 2.5% of a trace gas (CO2) isn't what drives climate change, a natural and unstoppable process. It's all about attacking prosperity and regulating every facet of our existence. Wake up, folks, they're not the knights in shining armor they claim to be.
- Peter, Warner