(If you don’t know what ALEC is, you should (really, you should) – please read the links at the end of this diary.)
Many of us hear about “cap and trade” on a regular basis and pay little attention to the concept because – to put it straight – a lot of us just don’t have time to know the ins and outs of everything in the news.
Hopefully today, I can help a few of you learn about cap and trade as well as “educate” you from an ALEC perspective about why we are where we are today.
I found this definition of cap and trade was the most clear and easiest to understand, so I will use this to start our journey.
The key to making polluters pay for emissions is a system known as “cap and trade.” A cap-and-trade system enforces an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions; sets realistic goals for reducing emissions over time; sets commonsense rules of the road; and harnesses the creativity and dynamism of the market to achieve these goals.
At base, the threat of climate disruption stems from a single fact: We treat the atmosphere as a free dumping ground. No one has to pay to pollute our shared air.
Jump-starting a transition to a clean-energy economy means, above all else, putting a price on climate-warming emissions: no more free dumping. The way to make polluters pay, while guaranteeing that we’ll meet emissions-reduction goals, is to implement a system called “cap and trade.” Cap and trade commits us to responsible limits on global warming emissions; gradually ratchets down those limits over time; and harnesses the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible, allowing the economy to adjust and thrive.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been concerned about cap and trade for years. They have been “educating” their legislative members on how to respond to cap and trade issues for years.
In 1997 the then National Chair of ALEC, Missouri State Representative Bonnie Sue Cooper wrote an article for ALEC legislative members titled Heartstrings Legislation
We Shouldn't Make a Law Just Because it "Feels Good". In that article she stated
Yet the environmental lobby continues to push for more of the same. It is not interested in pursuing cost-benefit analyses on environmental legislation. Its position is to implement rules and regulations that give us that warm and fuzzy feeling, even if the rules and regulations don't make sense…And what about the Rio Treaty on global warming? The U.S. is bound to a document that commits us to reducing greenhouse gases. Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia clearly tells us in ALEC's The State Factor: Questionable Policy Based on Uncertain Science, that "the catastrophic climate forecast that was the basis for the Rio Treaty is not supported by the facts." We entered that treaty, of course, based on an emotional appeal to "save the Earth."
The on-going belief that climate change …“is not supported by facts” has been an recurring mantra for ALEC since that time. When your legislator participates in ALEC meetings and receives ALEC literature, they are consistently being “educated” with a barrage of materials from ALEC telling them that climate change is not supported by facts.
This continual ALEC “education” of our state legislators and ALEC Alumni (those that hold national offices) is not an sporadic occurrence. A recent electronic review of 30 ALEC documents found 321 unique mentions of the word greenhouse – all with the same story line – climate change
A recent report on ALEC released by the People for the American Way notes:
The group’s model legislation assails EPA emissions guidelines and greenhouse gas regulations, destabilizes regional climate initiatives, permits free-reign for energy corporations, and pushes for massive deregulation. Unsurprisingly, ALEC’s “Energy, Environment and Agriculture” task force is led by Tom Moskitis of the American Gas Association and Martin Shultz of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a major lobbyist firm for oil and gas companies like ConocoPhillips.
In addition to the people / organization’s noted by PFAW that currently provide leadership for the ALEC membership in relation to the environment, you have past and present corporations / organizations that have been linked to ALEC that have had a significant impact on cap and trade issues. These organziations and corporations have shaped past and present cap and trade thinking and assisted in the developed of cap and trade legislation that has been or is currently being released by ALEC to their legislative members (active and alumni).
These are corporations and organizations that are given the opportunity to sit down with your state legislators to assist them in the production of “Model Legislation” that has been or is currently being reviewed by and voted on by the following companies at ALEC meetings with your ALEC legislator. Then your state legislator (who is an ALEC member) brings the “Model Legislation”, written with the help of energy companies, back to your state for implementation – in most cases you have no knowledge that it is legislation written with the help of ALEC corporate members (past and present) such as
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, American Cyanamid Co, American Electric Power Association , American Electric Power Service Corp, American Gas Association , American Nuclear Energy Council , Amoco Corporation , American Petroleum Institute , Archer Daniels Midland Corporation , ARCO Chemical Co, Ashland Oil, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co, BP , Caltex Petroleum , Carolina Power & Light, Center for Energy and Economic Development , Center for Energy and the Environment, Central and Southwest Corp, Central Illinois Light Co, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron, Columbia Gas of Ohio, Commonwealth Edison Company , Consumers Power, Crown Central Petroleum Corp, Du Pont Co, Duke Power Co, Edison Electric Institute , ElectriCities of North Carolina, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Energy Future Holdings , Enron Corporation , Entergy Corporation, Exxon/Mobil, Florida Gas Transmission Co, Florida Power Corp, Georgia Natural Gas, Georgia Pacific Corp, Georgia Power Company, Homestake Mining Co., Independence Mining Co, Iowa Utility Association, Kansas City Power and Light Co, Koch Industries, Inc. Marathon Petroleum Co, Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, Mid-American Energy Company, Mineral Resource Alliance, Monsanto Co, Natural Gas Supply Association , Nevada Mining Association, Nevada Power, Newmont Mining Corporation , North Carolina Electric Membership Corp, Nuclear Energy Institute, Oglethorpe Power Corp, Oxygenated Fuels Association, Peabody Energy , Pennsylvania Electric Co, Pennzoil Co, Phelps Dodge Corp, Phillips 66 Petroleum, Portland General Electric, Salt River Project , San Diego Gas & Electric, Shell Oil Co, Sierra Pacific Power Co, Southern California Edison, Tampa Electric Co, Tenneco Gas, Texaco, U.S. Generating Co, Union Pacific Railroad , UtiliCorp United Inc, Western Fuels Association, Inc, Western States Petroleum Association
I may have missed a few – but you get the idea (I hope).
This is another example of ALEC’s unrelenting focus on their “free-market” philosophy and the sole focus of ALEC to maintain the free trade potential and profitability (aka “Prosperity”) of the corporate members of ALEC that meet with our legislators to draft “Model Legislation” . Corporations and organziations that are given the ability to affect federal regulations through resolutions relating to cap and trade at the state and federal level.
In order to support this – let’s take a historical look at the ALEC “educational” materials that they release to your legislators (that are members of ALEC) to consider when faced with cap and trade issues.
In the 2001 ALEC Annual report the ALEC members are reminded of the position they are suppose to hold with this statement:
Ten years ago, an ill-founded international agreement to reduce hydrocarbon fuel consumption was conceived, named the Kyoto Protocol, and its issue has resulted in the consideration of carbon dioxide emission standards in the states. Although it is still unclear whether global warming is occurring or, even if it is occurring, whether it would have a major impact on our climate, environmental activists are pushing the states and our economy towards an energy starvation diet.
In the 2002 ALEC Annual Report they reinforce this message – but take it one step further in a message co-authored by the ALEC National Chair, Louisiana Representative
Donald Ray Kennard
We also need to guard against proposed “back-door Kyoto Protocol” regulations that would significantly increase energy costs but yield negligible environmental benefits.
In 2004 ALEC produced a report named Sons of Kyoto: Greenhouse Gas Regulation in the States, released to their members noting:
Ultimately, this system will create a national energy tax in the short term and has implications that may significantly harm free trade in the future. The legacy that we may hand over to future generations is not one of individual choices in a free market system, but one of lost opportunities in a global market controlled by a carbon cartel.
In a 2007 ALEC released a Public Policy Forum to their members entitle Climate Change Alarmism. In this report ALEC makes the following claims to the members:
Despite the claims of global warming alarmists, however, there is little evidence that we face imminent, catastrophic climate change…. Such measures would make it impossible for the United States and other countries to generate the huge amounts of new electricity we will need in the coming years. … We do not face imminent climate catastrophe.
In addition – they state that regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions legislation will have the following affect:
such policies ensure that poor nations never have enough electricity for offices, factories, jobs or anything remotely approaching the living standards that we would never surrender to prevent climate change.
Oh, my........
And they take this international approach to the next level in the May 2007 issue of Inside ALEC, released to their members, where they state
The chanters of the global warming mantra want us to believe Europe is “doing something” and that we should “do something,” too. Indeed Europe has done something. They have raised prices and not lowered carbon emissions. … The United States should not succumb to the global warming mantra.
And to close out the year in an article in the December 2007 Inside ALEC magazine, they take the international connection, one step further.
Greenhouse gases are well mixed in the atmosphere. The ambient levels of greenhouse gases in Des Moines, Iowa are more influenced by the emissions from China than they are from the emissions of Des Moines.
…to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This will be impossible for Des Moines, or any other area because China’s greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at a very rapid rate and there is no sign of stopping.
ALEC encapsulates the year of 2007 with a 110 page report to their members entitled Energy, Environment, and Economics : A Guide for State Legislators, The Fifth Edition (2007) where they state:
“Cap and Trade” schemes that allow firms and governments to trade the right to emit greenhouse gases up to certain limits are not economically efficient. By creating rent-seeking opportunities, they promote the development of a carbon cartel seeking to exploit the system to make profits.
So during the year of 2007 we see the greenhouse gas regulations as something that should be guarded against – in all current and future forms to the reiteration of the establishment of a “carbon cartel”, first mentioned in 2004.
Personal opinion here – these people are just plain crazy - just plain crazy – and the truly sad part is that each of you who is reading this has legislators who are ALEC members - ALEC members who believe this and are legislators that represent the ALEC corporate members. Your ALEC legislator influences the voting behavior in your state and ALEC’s influence goes all the way to the federal level through ALEC alumni who serve in various functions of the federal government including Congress.
On to the more recent ALEC interpretation of cap and trade.
In a Sept 10, 2009 ALEC Press Release
ALEC members have actively opposed “Cap and Trade” legislation as a costly expansion of federal power that will plague America’s economy with fraud, waste and inefficiency. According to 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."
Yes, I am sure that they have opposed it – on behalf of the corporate members of ALEC and at the expense of the constituents of the state which the legislators were suppose to represent. I personally haven't heard my neighbors talking about the fear of losing their jobs, unemployment or an unstable economy - relating it to carbon emissions - but that seems to be where ALEC's thinking goes. Help the poor by burining more fossil fuels.
Another excerpt from the recent report on ALEC released by the People for the American Way notes:
Rather than serve the public interest, ALEC champions the agenda of corporations which are willing to pay for access to legislators and the opportunity to write their very own legislation. It helps surrogates and lobbyists for corporations draft and promote bills which gut environmental laws,
For those of you that are thinking that ALEC’s corporate members might be amenable to “green” energy – don’t think so. In a 2009 article named, Blowing Bubbles; Why “Green” Jobs are a Liability, Not an Asset (Inside ALEC June 2009) they note:
A cap and trade policy for greenhouse gases would limit the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by issuing or auctioning a limited number of permits to those who emit. The purpose of cap and trade is not simply to reduce greenhouse gases but also to raise energy prices so that conventional sources of energy lose their natural cost advantages over alternatives.
So, evidently the ”conventional sources of energy”, fossil fuels, produced and used by the ALEC corporate members are the only thing that matters and it will be disastrous if they “lose their natural cost advantage”.
That brings us to some examples of what they tell your state legislator to do on behalf of the ALEC corporate members. One example would be this resolution which was distributed to ALEC legislative members to introduce at the state level.
American Legislative Exchange Council Resolution in Opposition to EPA’s Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources
.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.
This represents just an excerpt from a three page resolution that was distributed to members to introduce at the state level.
Another resolution that ALEC has provided to their members in their publication named EPA's Regulatory Train Wreck: Strategies for State Legislators (2011) includes the following wording:
Resolution Opposing EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck
WHEREAS: EPA’s regulatory activity as to air quality and greenhouse gases has become known as the “train wreck,” because of the numerous and overlapping requirements and because of the potentially devastating consequences this regulatory activity may have on the economy;
WHEREAS: Concern is growing that, with cap-and-trade legislation having failed in Congress, EPA is attempting to obtain the same results through the adoption of regulations;
WHEREAS: EPA over-regulation is driving jobs and industry out of America;
And I particularly like this resolution, which I think sums it all up.
…this resolution supports the 2000 EPA determination that coal combustion residuals do not warrant federal regulation
The resolution encourages accommodation of highly efficient power technologies, like super-critical and ultra super-critical coal-fired electric generating units, to serve the dual purpose of reducing the overall emissions profile of the electricity generation unit while providing efficient, affordable, and available power today and into the future.
Let’s see – who would be interested in coal based energy???? Did I just hear Koch Industries ALEC Speak?
It's important to remember, if your ALEC legislator forgets what they are suppose to write or say help is just a phone call away from an ALEC staffer:
Finally, legislators should feel free to get in touch with ALEC and the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force for additional resources. Clint Woods can be contacted at 202.742.8542 or cwoods@alec.org.
My diary today really got a start about two weeks ago when I read a diary by Barbara Buono on May 27th noting Chris Christie’s turn around on cap and trade.
Just this week, he [Christie] returned to his previous position that humans do play a role in climate change, yet yesterday announced that he is withdrawing New Jersey from one of the most monumental anti-global warming initiatives we have undertaken.
She was perplexed by Christie’s position, what she does not realize is that to Christie, his actions are very logical if you view his statement and actions from an ALEC perspective.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and if everything else remained constant, the increase of carbon dioxide should lead to some warming of climate, but everything else has not remained constant. In other words, human activities are likely responsible for part of the warming we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age. The real question is how much of the warming is attributable to human activities? We know that at the local level humans are definitely causing warming because of “urban heat islands.” Our self-constructed environment of concrete, pavement, and other surfaces retains heat more than vegetation. (Inside ALEC August 2007)
At first glance, this may seem like a logical conclusion – but you have to remember we are reading something written by ALEC. If you read it carefully you will find the premise for the argument that we may not have expected, which is, how much do “local level humans” contribute to global warming.
With this in mind, Christie’s seemingly perplexing move makes sense in an ALEC type of way. He does believe that humans play a role – “local level humans”. It is not the fault of ALEC’s 80 (or more) energy corporate members noted above – therefore New Jersey no longer needs “anti-global warming initiatives” – because the corporations are not at fault. You and I are the problem. If you accept the premise that you and I are the problem, cap and trade legislation/regulations on corporations is illogical, and does not need to exist.
This is where ALEC’s argument and logic has been and will be in the future - it is the foundation for their argument against cap and trade. We will undoubtedly hear more ALEC member legislators using this argument – unless we take action.
We must stop the "education" of our legislators by ALEC and their corporate members.
It is time for our legislators to represent us - not ALEC corporate members.
In order to do that, starting now and through the next two election cycles - we must work to remove all ALEC legislators from the state and federal level governments.
If you don’t know what ALEC is – please read this, or this, or this, or this, or this.