Home > Uncategorized > Some Facts To Guide Intrepid Clean Energy Lobbyists

Some Facts To Guide Intrepid Clean Energy Lobbyists

Never Has So Much ENGO Effort Been So Cynically Mis-directed

RGGI Has No Measurable Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Dr. James Hansen speaks at NRDC building, NYC (11/9/09)

Dr. James Hansen speaks at NRDC building, NYC (11/30/09)

Frank Brille over at EnviroPolitics blog reports that tomorrow (3/15) is “Clean Energy Lobby Day” in Trenton.

Oh, Beware the Ides of March! my intrepid lobbyists!

Apparently, the lobbying focus is on RGGI, which not coincidentally coincides with Democratic leadership efforts to post a vote in both Houses on a symbolic gesture of a bill (A/1998/S1322. (we’re sure Waldo’s heart bleeds for RGGI). As Frank archly notes:

RGGI showdown votes in both houses tomorrow

Democratic leaders in both the Senate and Assembly, eager to confront Republican Governor Chris Christie on the RGGI issue, have posted both bills for floor votes tomorrow.  …

Even if both measures pass, the governor is almost guaranteed to veto them and, with Republican legislators generally agreeing with their guy in the front office, a veto override vote is all but guaranteed to fail.

Frank is a gentleman, so he gives Dave Pringle the lede quote and just enough rope to hang himself.

But, aside from Pringle and the cynical Kabuki by the Dems, still, I thought all those intrepid young lobbyists might want to be armed with a few facts as they take on hostile legislators.

Knowing how internet savvy these kids are, we provide a veritable roadmap homework assignment – be sure to hit all the links!

For those who prefer visual message formats, we have a great 9 minute YouTube video for you to watch to buck you up before you enter the Trenton lion’s den.

It’s by 2 EPA enforcement attorneys with over 40 years experience in cap and trade programs.

As whistleblowers, they felt so strongly about the issue that they risked their careers and reputations to speak out – an example of having the courage of your convictions and a willingness to make personal sacrifice for the truth and the public interest.

So watch: “The Huge Mistake”.

You can watch the news coverage of the issue by Democracy Now! Part One and Part Two.

Read the Washington Post Op-Ed:  The Mirage of Cap and Trade

But don’t stop there!

For those who are influenced by celebrity, we have THE global warming rock star, Dr. James Hansen, the world’s foremost global warming scientist. I joined Dr. Hansen in a protest at Bank of America, two years before Occupy Wall Street. According to Dr. Hansen:

“Cap and trade with offsets would guarantee that we pass climate tipping points, locking in climate disasters for our children. Cap and trade benefits only Wall Street and polluters, sacrificing humanity and nature for their profits.” Dr. Jim Hansen (11/30/09)

For the political junkies, we explain the politics:

And for the analytical types out there, read the policy papers and EPA whistleblower  Report to Congress:

“Our disclosure is drafted in the context of warnings by NASA scientists that levels of GHGs in the atmosphere have reached unsafe levels. In May 2009, MIT researchers concluded that “without rapid and massive action” to reduce GHG emissions, dangerous increases in global temperatures are inevitable. The National Science Foundation announced in March 2010 that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier, is perforated and beginning to leak large amounts of methane, a powerful GHG, into the atmosphere from melting permafrost below. The announcement states, “[r]elease of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

While the United States cannot successfully address climate change alone, a continuing U.S. failure to adopt effective domestic climate strategies weakens the chances of effective international action. Our country’s ability to help forge an effective international effort is dependent on showing that the U.S. can adopt a sustainable path at home. Our request for a careful, unbiased investigation of the flaws of GHG offsets is rooted in the reality that enacting ineffective programs to address climate change is likely to have extremely serious consequences for public health and the environment, as well as the economy and national security.

See: Request for Investigation by U.S. Congress

Problem: Disclosure of Unfixable Flaws of Greenhouse Gas Offsets in Proposed U.S. Climate Legislation

Impact: Misleading the Public; Implications for Proposed Climate Legislation; Waste, Fraud and Abuse of Public Funds and Public Trust


But, we saved the best for last.

For the data freaks who have been mislead into supporting RGGI, we are truly sorry to burst your bubble.

You don’t have to believe the numbers and commitments of the RGGI Agreement itself, or Environment Northeast’s analyses, or DEP statements, or the Governor’s CV, or my testimony (starts at 9:13) and all that I’ve written over the last 3 years, or independent energy expert testimony that RGGI so called “emissions caps” are 30% ABOVE current emissions and that RGGI would produce ONLY a 1% “reduction”over business as usual over its 20 years.

According to DEP’s GHG emissions inventory and 2009 Report to the Legislature, total NJ GHG emissions in 2004 were 137 million metric tons.

For context, we note that Environment NJ is supporting RGGI on the basis that it indirectly allegedly “reduced” GHG emissions by avoided consumption by 13,100 tons per year as a result in 50% capital investments in certain combined heat and power and solar systems.

So, even if accurate, that is just 0.05% – no typo – 5 one hundredths of 1 % of NJ’s RGGI GHG allowances (22,892,730).

Worse, claimed RGGI reductions are just 0.009% – that’s 9 one thousands of 1 % of total NJ GHG emissions.

How on earth can anyone call that literally unmeasurable performance- just 9 one thousands of 1% – “one of NJ’s most effective pollution control programs”?

Good luck with your lobby day – you could do better spending the day at the beach picking up garbage.

[Update 1: Oh, and did I mention that the RGGI bill was OPPOSED by environmental groups at the time of its final passage ? (i.e. opposed by Environment NJ, Sierra and NJEF). And that the bill was severely criticized by editorials in the Bergen Record, Star Ledger and Courier News? See: Lame Global Warming Bill Goes to the Governor

[Update 2 – Here is RGGI NJ statutory objective – which it clearly has not met:

    1. C.26:2C-45 Findings, declarations relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

      1. The Legislature finds and declares that New Jersey should implement cost-effective measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and that emissions trading and the

      auction of allowances can be an effective mechanism to accomplish that objective.
      The Legislature further finds and declares that entering into agreements or arrangements with appropriate representatives of other states may further the purposes of P.L.2007, c.340 (C.26:2C-45 et al.) and the Global Warming Response Act, P.L.2007, c.112 (C.26:2C-37 et 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. scott olson
    March 14th, 2012 at 20:33 | #1
  2. March 15th, 2012 at 09:29 | #2

    @scott olson

    Wow! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

    Wonder where they got the Pringle memo?

  1. May 28th, 2014 at 13:30 | #1
You must be logged in to post a comment.