TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

[from a Facebook post]

On climate, why are so many anarchists/libertarians/conservatives part of a Bootlegger-Baptist coalition that protects the crony status quo?

Could it be that tribalism and confirmation bias makes hating on lefty enviro-fascist watermelon commies so much fun?

Is there a “burden of proof” before we have to start criticizing government ownership/mismanagement of resources, grants of public utility monopolies that crush competition and consumer choice, pollution regulations that provide free rights to pollute (and grandfather the dirtiest polluters), and government creation of corporations that provide grants of limited liability to investors?

Come on.

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=climate+bootleggers
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2010/02/10/productive-libertarian-approach-climate-energy-environmental-issues/
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=tribal+climate

[from a Facebook post]

Trust me — you don’t have to agree with those who say “climate science is scary, so we need to do something about it” to be willing to have a decent conversation about how governments play a deep role in generating problems, and seeing ways to use the concerns of “warmers” as leverage to try to start fixing what is broken.

Elsewhere, I got head-scratches when I said, “I think there is little we can do to change temps …, but I still think that there is room for productive “climate” policy.”

Allow me to reconcile what for some is an apparent contradiction:

The climate system is complex, and we are engaged in a massive experiment that simply cannot be turned on a dime even if we were all to make the effort (even if we stopped all fossil fuel CO2 releases tomorrow, the processes now set in motion will take centuries to play out); already CO2 levels are now higher than they’ve been for 3 MILLION years: http://theconversation.com/carbon-stored-deep-in-antarctic-waters-ended-the-last-ice-age-37488

I am not one of those who are fine and dandy with this “experiment” and who act as if it is a “conservative” venture or that market or libertarian principles justify it.

Nor, however, am I one of those who think that climate concerns — like other environmental/healthy/safety/welfare concerns — mandate massive further interference with people’s lives and economic activities, in the manner of past interventions.

Governments have been and continue to be hugely disruptive, incompetent and corrupt, and in fact are the friends of the “crony capital” corporations that are the object of popular scorn (but in fact such corporations are made, fed, coddled, catered to and protected from competition and market forces by governments).

So I “get” some of the reflexive whinging by shallow market fundamentalists that the science must be wrong and that “enviros” must be evil — though these people also piss me off, because in effect they are ideologues who are protecting crony capitalists and a very fucked up system, rather than engaging in good faith with people who can see quite clearly that there are no “property rights” or “market prices” in the air that magically direct economic activity “invisible hand”-like towards optimal outcomes.

My suggestions that there are productive climate policies is one that is NOT based on either a certainty of climate science or some false expectation that we could easily “fix” the climate (we can’t), but on the awareness that our current economic order is profoundly corrupt, costly/inefficient, significantly hampers consumer choice and innovation, socializes real (and generally recognized) pollution costs and protects bureaucrats.

And even the deepest skeptic of climate change science and theory ought to be interested in seizing the opportunity of the concerns of others to FIX what is deeply fucked up about economic regulation. That is, of course, unless they’re hooked the adrenaline rush that comes from being a blind, self-righteous ideologue in a “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition.

Here are some thoughts, both on productive climate policies and on seeing past illusory certainty:

http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2010/02/10/productive-libertarian-approach-climate-energy-environmental-issues/
http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/?s=climate+trust

Note: I have reworked this from a comment I made on another post: https://www.facebook.com/tokyotomsr/posts/10202665423355536

Right?

1.  BP Spent $2 Million Lobbying On Offshore Drilling, Spill Liability, Other Regulations In First Quarter Of 2011 (Marcus Baram, Huffington Post, April 21, 2011): (emphasis added)

On the first anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that killed 11 workers, oil giant BP revealed via mandatory disclosure forms that it spent at least $2 million on federal lobbying in the first quarter of 2011 on a wide range of issues, from advocating for an end to the offshore drilling moratorium imposed by President Barack Obama in the wake of the spill to caps on its contributions to the restoration of the Gulf Coast.

BP tapped five well-connected lobbying firms — Alpine Group; Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock; the Podesta Group; Stuntz Davis & Staffier; and the Duberstein Group — to ply their influence on Capitol Hill and at federal agencies in the wake of the four-month-long spill, which devastated the environment and leaked more than 205 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Executive-branch agencies targeted by the beleaguered oil behemoth, which faces a criminal probe by the Justice Department, included the Environmental Protection Agency and the State and Treasury departments.

In addition to the drilling moratorium and coastal restoration contributions, BP lobbied heavily regarding implementation of the presidential oil spill commission’s recommendations, which included stricter oversight of offshore drilling.

BP also lobbied Congress on the Put the Gulf Back to Work Act, the legislation passed last week by the House Natural Resources Committee under the leadership of chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) which speeds up the approval process for new drilling permits. That bill prompted Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to accuse House Republicans of having “amnesia” about the oil spill.

Among other issues of interest to BP: the Restoring American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which requires Salazar to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales; financial reform legislation and proposed rules; and liability protection for producing and retailing motor fuel that contains 15 percent ethanol. In addition, the oil company lobbied on several proposed EPA rules relating to greenhouse gas emissions and ambient air quality standards, and lobbied Congress on energy tax issues, corporate tax reform and the export of Caspian gas into European markets.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that BP broke its self-imposed moratorium on political donations in the wake of the spill.

2.  Coal mining to expand on public lands in Wyoming, CNN, March 23, 2011: (emphasis added)

Coal mining on public lands will expand in the coming months in Wyoming, as the federal government makes more coal-rich land available for lease by mining companies.

“Coal is a critical component of America¹s comprehensive energy portfolio, as well as Wyoming’s economy,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference Tuesday.

The leases are expected to bring in between $13.4 billion and $21.3 billion in leasing bids and royalties to the federal government and the state of Wyoming. Wyoming will receive 48% of those revenues, with the rest going to the federal government.

The four tracts of land in northeast Wyoming’s Powder River Basin are expected to yield about 758 million tons of coal, Salazar said.

“Wyoming is the No.1 coal producer from public lands, contributing more than 400 million tons annually to our domestic energy supply, providing nearly 40% or the coal used by power plants nationwide to provide electricity nationwide,” Salazar said.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, a Republican, applauded the move.

“Coal is a big deal here in Wyoming,” Mead said. “We need the energy, we need the jobs that come with energy, and we need the electricity.”

Bob Murphy recently offered LvMI readers a post; “Apologist Responses to Climategate Misconstrue the Real Debate”; I left a few comments in response (minor edits).

(My apologies to Bob for  borrowing and tweaking his title.)

Bob, interesting title –

“Apologist Responses to Climategate Misconstrue the Real Debate (Quantitative, not Qualitative)”

Have you failed to notice that practically every commenter on threads here, as well as at “MasterResource” misunderstands and misconstrues precisely what you have spelled out?

Interesting place to post it, as well.  MasterResource? Isn`t that Rob Bradley`s so-called “free market” energy blog that bans libertarian commenters who dare to note:

– the blog`s failure to ever actually argue for freer energy markets or to criticize the dirty favors given under the status quo to coal, or

– the blog`s close affiliations with naked rent-seeking groups like IER (which Exxon expressly de-funded due to its no-longer “productive” stance on climate change)(and which pays you for your climate work) and American Energy Alliance?

See: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=bradley

It`s curious that you focus on climate “apologists”, while ignoring how you yourself so adroitly act as one for the reflexive “skeptics”:

– “It’s true, an email from Phil Jones by itself doesn’t make Richard Lindzen right or wrong, but when policymakers need to decide which scientific experts they can trust, then the CRU emails are very relevant.”

Um, wouldn`t a “real” skeptic say you are both appealing to authority, and by referring to trust, dismissing some on an “ad hom” basis, without addressing their arguments?

– You slip by the obvious nonsense deliberately spouted by Limbaugh, Fox and others, by pretending they`re actually being reasonable:

“Of course, what Limbaugh and the Fox interviewer meant was, “The theory that says governments around the world need to heavily intervene in their energy sectors right away, or else our grandchildren will face climate catastrophes, cannot be justified by careful scientific research.”

Respectfully, hogwash. Why the effort to put lipstick on pigs?

While I find a fair bit of your post to be useful, other parts are misleading:

– “the issue isn’t, “Is ‘climate’ a useful theory to explain thermometer readings?” No, the real debate concerns very specific and quantitative disagreements.”

This really misses the gist: the real scientific dispute about ONE aspect of climate science is about climate “sensitivity” – the long-term, multi-decadal average temperature response of the Earth`s surface temperature to a doubling of CO2 – and is a specific disagreement over quantities that can only be GUESSED at in advance and are very difficult to estimate even in retrospect.

You – like “skeptics” like Lindzen – totally ignore ocean acidification.

– “The reason QED (quantum electrodynamics) is powerful is that it allowed physicists to make very precise predictions that were experimentally verified.”

It`s funny that you mention this, as if it implies we should ignore/discount climate science – until it can be “experimentally verified.”  Well, we`re running the experiment right now, except we have no “control”, no re-runs, and little or no control over the very experiment itself. Excuse me for not finding cnfort in this, or in your lack of willingness to address it.

– “If the climate scientists cannot tell if a particular remedy is working, it means that they aren’t exactly sure how the climate would have evolved in the absence of such a remedy. In other words, Trenberth at least is admitting that he is not at all confident in the precise, quantitative predictions that the alarmists are citing as proof of the need for immediate government intervention.”

Bob, scientists all recognize that there is a great deal of unpredictibility/”noise” in the climate system; there simply are are NO “precise, quantitative predictions” that any scientist is making. I`m surprised you find anything surprising here.

– “`All the rest is economics.`   Since that is Schmidt’s view, it’s not surprising that he thinks Climategate is much ado about nothing.”

I read this differently; Schmidt indicates, that from a scientists`s view,  we ought to immediately stop forcing the climate, but acknowledges that the decision is not his to make, and involves cost-benefit money/political decisions that belong to others.

– “Those of us who are not experts on climate models now have proof that the official line that “the science is settled” was a bluff.”

It`s not clear what you actually mean here, Bob, but in any case you have absolutely no such thing.  The “official line” has always been a political argument about that society should respond to growing scientific knowledge; these emails do NOT alter the underlying knowledge.

– “but the confidence we should right now place in their modeling is much lower than what their biggest enthusiasts have been assuring us for years.”

On what basis do you offer this opinion, and the implicit comfort that coal producers/utilities/their investors want to give us that burning all the rest of the world`s fossil fuels will leave the climate/oceans hunky-dory (ignoring all the dangerous gunk included it)?

Tom

Let me close with a note that, despite my criticisms, I commend Bob`s effort; I encourage him to continue to check that he`s not falling prey to sophisticated forms of self-delusion:

The
Road Not Taken II: Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy
on climate change, the greatest commons problem / rent-seeking game of
our age

A few more “delusional” thoughts to John Quiggin on partisan perceptions & libertarian opposition to collective action

It looks like Sen. Robert Byrd, a lifetime loyal supporter of the West Virginia coal industry (see his definitive biography, “Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields”), stabbed Don Blankenship/Massey Coal and the rest of the W.Va. environmentally destructive “mountaintop mining” industry in the back last Thursday, in an op-ed in the West Virginia MetroNews entitled, “Coal Must Embrace the Future”.

I excerpt portions below (emphasis added):

For more than 100 years, coal has been the backbone of the Appalachian economy. Even today, the economies of more than 20 states depend to some degree on the mining of coal. About half of all the electricity generated in America and about one quarter of all the energy consumed globally is generated by coal.

Change is no stranger to the coal industry.  Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800’s.  Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.

These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia’s elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities.  I share those concerns.  But the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia.

Let’s speak the truth. The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal. Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counter-productive.

Coal companies want a large stockpile of permits in their back pockets because that implies stability to potential investors. But when coal industry representatives stir up public anger toward federal regulatory agencies, it can damage the state’s ability to work with those agencies to West Virginia’s benefit. This, in turn, may create the perception of ineffectiveness within the industry, which can drive potential investors away.

Let’s speak a little more truth here. No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America. That is a stubborn fact that vexes some in the environmental community, but it is reality.

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens. West Virginians may demonstrate anger toward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over mountaintop removal mining, but we risk the very probable consequence of shouting ourselves out of any productive dialogue with EPA and our adversaries in the Congress.

Some have even suggested that coal state representatives in Washington should block any advancement of national health care reform legislation until the coal industry’s demands are met by the EPA. I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible.  It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.

To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology.

Most people understand that America cannot meet its current energy needs without coal, but there is strong bi-partisan opposition in Congress to the mountaintop removal method of mining it. We have our work cut out for us in finding a prudent and profitable middle ground – but we will not reach it by using fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy. As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining.

I have spent the past six months working with a group of coal state Democrats in the Senate, led by West Virginia native Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), drafting provisions to assist the coal industry in more easily transitioning to a lower-carbon economy. These include increasing funding for clean coal projects and easing emission standards and timelines, setting aside billions of dollars for coal plants that install new technology and continue using coal. These are among the achievable ways coal can continue its major role in our national energy portfolio. It is the best way to step up to the challenge and help lead change.

The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment.  Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare.

The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation. In fact, the future of American industrial power and our economic ability to compete globally depends on our ability to advance energy technology.

The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.

Fortunately, West Virginia has a running head-start as an innovator. Low-carbon and renewable energy projects are already under development in West Virginia, including:  America’s first integrated carbon capture and sequestration project on a conventional coal-fired power plant in Mason County; the largest wind power facility in the eastern United States; a bio-fuel refinery in Nitro; three large wood pellet plants in Fayette, Randolph, and Gilmer Counties; and major dams capable of generating substantial electricity.

Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it.  One thing is clear.  The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.

(Oops; looks like I “excerpted” the whole thing!)

Byrd looks like he`s ready to sign a climate bill and to see an end to future mountaintop mining permits, as long as he gets federal pork for carbon capture and storage, and maybe some “green” project financing. These together may boost jobs in his state.

I think he`s also fairly accurately noted that it is the coal industry itself, and not politicos/regulators in Washington, that are the chief threat to coal jobs and to the health of W.Va citizens.

It`s too bad that states like W.Va. are so beholden to coal revenues that it essential requires political decisions – as opposed to simply upholding the rights of property owners to be free from nuisance, intrusions and damages by others – to put an end to destructive mining practices.

“The Climes, They Are A-Changin`”!

Senate Dems, who lack sufficient votes on their own to approve a cap-and-trade bill over a possible Republican fillibuster, have sought help from sympathetic Republicans, who have apparently used this leverage to broaden the bill and to extract key concessions on various issues; such  concessions are sure to please a wide range of lobbying groups, and it looks like there may be a good chance that they will be sufficient to slip a cap-and-trade bill past opposition from coal-producing and -burning states.

The framework of the bi-partisan package was spelled out on Sunday, October11, in a joint NYT op-ed, “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)”,  by liberal Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and conservative Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

While details are sketchy (and details sure to still be fought over), it looks like Pres. Obama will have, if not final legislation, then at least high prospects for a cap-and-trade bill that he can use for the negotiations that will start in a few weeks in Copenhagen (over the shape of a global climate treaty to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol).

Excerpts from the Kerry-Graham op-ed are here (emphasis added; with a few comments in brackets):

Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the
carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain
concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental
benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources
of oil [Republicans are so easily jerked around over “energy security”].

However, we refuse to accept the argument that the
United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate
change. [but do China, India and others want to follow?] We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for
climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a
clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current
jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce
pollution. …

First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive
reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate
change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a
market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big
polluters to come into compliance without hindering global
competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas. [cap-and-trade]

Second, while we
invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also
take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of
emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of
electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction
targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled
the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit
system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to
secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage
serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our
nuclear waste problem.

Third, climate change legislation is an
opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign
oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our
coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity
generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will
continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must
do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become
the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new
financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and
sequestration technology.

In addition, we are committed to
seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas
exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate
last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally
sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal
states.

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors
overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing
heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of
jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to
countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason,
we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that
avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under
the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other
countries to adopt tough environmental protections.[probably just a signal to China & India; any bill would have to leave flexibility to the Administration.]

Finally, we
will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately
consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the
establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission
allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they
make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We
recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any
climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also
believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous. …

If Congress does not pass legislation
dealing with climate change, the administration will use the
Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed
regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not
include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing. 

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear:
killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of
agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative
process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic
to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today.
Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.

Joe Romm on the left applauds the proposed deal (though there is sure to be disagreement about support for coal, nuclear power and offshore oil & gas exploration), and Bill Scher says “Sen. Lindsey Graham Crosses the Climate Rubicon” and thus “made a deal all but inevitable”.

On the right, Michelle Malkin reports that she was right to warn about Republican turn-coats, the National Review `s Gore-haters are dispirited, and MasterResource, the coal-funded “free market” energy blog by libertarian Rob Bradley, has nothing to say.

Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. notes the lack of precision and suggests that Republicans now have the upper hand in negotiating the bill.

More reaction and background that readers may find useful is here:

People can compete with their competition  to
provide the best products and service at the best price or people can
compete for government influence to give them an unfair advantage over
their competition.

There’s really no other option.

The larger government gets the more the latter is beneficial, and eventually required. We’re almost there now.

#

re: Rot at the Core: Michael Moore says “Capitalism is evil”, but
rightly points to statist corporations and institutionalized theft via
government

Well
said. It seems to me that the best way to influence this is to start
forming a consumer-supported coalition of principled, non-rent-seeking
firms.

The intransigence of a core of coal interests, in the face of a rebellion by firms that support legislative action on climate change, is threatening the status of the US Chamber of Commerce as the premier business council in the US, as now Apple Computer has quit the US Chamber of Commerce.

Apple`s departure, announced  on October 5 and effective immediately, came on the heels of departures in the past two weeks by the utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. In addition, Nike has quit the Chamber’s Board, and other members such as Johnson & Johnson have voiced strong opposition to the climate stance of the Chamber and asked that it not take public positions on this issue.

It`s not clear how closely the Chamber has polled all of its wide membership on climate issue, but it`s apparent that the Chamber`s rather hard-line stance is out of step with its Board members.  According to research by the NRDC (a mainline environmentalist group) in May:

the staff of the U.S. Chamber appears to be projecting the views
held by a tiny sliver of its board of directors – just four out of 122
members on the board.

The Chamber’s oft-stated views, which question the scientific
consensus on climate change and reject the need for federal regulation
to reduce global warming pollution, stand in sharp contrast to the
views expressed by 19 members of the Chamber’s board that support
federal regulations with goals to reduce total US global warming
pollution.  

You read that right: only 23 members of the U.S. Chamber’s board have a publicly stated position on climate change and more than 80 percent are not on board with the U.S. Chamber’s “Dr. No” position on climate policy action.

So who is in the minority that has shanghaied the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce on climate policy? Be prepared to be shocked!  Three of the
four climate are coal companies:  Peabody Energy, Massey Energy Corp.,
and CONSOL Energy.  (The fourth – Con-Way Inc. – is “a freight company and logistical services company.”)

As the WaPo noted, in response to prior defections,

Last week, the group’s president, Thomas J. Donohue, said in a
statement that his group supports “strong federal legislation” to
protect the climate. But he said legislation passed by the House of
Representatives — which would use a “cap and trade” system to lower
the cost of reducing emissions — was flawed because it does not
require other polluting countries to act and does too little to spur
U.S. investment in green technologies.

In response to Apple`s departure, a spokesman for the Chamber dissed the motives of the firms quitting the Chamber:

“While we’ll continue to represent the broad majority of our membership
on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to
gain more than others with the current options on the table.”

While this may be true for the utility companies, which are members of the USCAP organization and stand to gain free allocations of carbon allowances under the cap and trade bills under consideration, it is hardly so for Apple, Nike or Johnson & Johnson. And of course it distracts from the fact that the coal firms and their shippers – including Union Pacific, which richly compensates Union Pacific board member Tom Donohue, the President of the Chamber – benefit greatly from the status quo, to an extent and in a manner quite different from other Chamber members.

It will be interesting to see what will happen next at the Chamber of Commerce, and who will be next to leave.

The coal- and utility-funded “free-market think tank” Institute of Energy Research has a just released another study that tells us the obvious about the regressive consequences of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and the benefits likely to flow to its corporate supporters, while masking its own agenda. As an added benefit, the press release includes some one-sided and unsupportable over-statements by Bob Murphy.

A few points:

IER:  “cap-and-trade would precipitate a financial windfall for well-connected
special interests and politically-favored companies.”

me:  No dispute here. It`s perfectly fair to point out who will benefit from the cap-and-trade bills.  But let`s not ignore that coal investors have long benefitted from being able to shift pollution costs to people downstream, under the perverse “rights to pollute” enabled under the Clean Air Act, and under state and federal mining licenses that allow mining firms to force out local residents.

IER:  “The study … details how shareholders,
not ratepayers, will be the primary beneficiaries of cap-and-trade’s
largess.”

me:  Sure, just like how it was shareholders in coal producers and utilities who are the primary beneficiaries of the externalities permitted by the status quo.

Bob Murphy:  “[The] analysis … illustrates just how flawed and skewed this
legislation is toward rent-seeking special interests.“

me:  Sure, but the interest of the coal lobby is that the legislation doesn`t benefit them enough. Do coal investors care MORE about what`s good for the average Joe than do other “rent-seeking special interests”?

Bob Murphy:  “secondly, and more important, [the analysis] shows that cap-and-trade, as
outlined in Waxman-Markey, is nothing more than a transfer of wealth
from the poorest to the richest among us.“

me:  Oh really?  Does the analysis really conclude that Waxman-Markey does “nothing more” than transfer wealth? You mean Waxman-Markey wouldn`t actually raise prices of carbon-based energy or affect consumption and investment decisions by industry, businesses and consumers?

Bob Murphy:  “These new findings should send a clear message to the American people – cap-and-trade helps the powerful and hurts the rest of us.“

me: The message is fine and important. But are coal firms and investors “the rest of us”, not powerful and only concerned about the average Joe, or are they trying to protect their own privileged position? Further, are there any alternatives to cap-and-trade that coal investors support, such as carbon taxes, or even undoing their favored treatment under federal clean air laws and mining laws?

Bob Murphy:  And as Congress’ corporate allies receive the bulk of the benefits
Waxman-Markey has to offer, our environment, along with our struggling
economy, will suffer for years to come. Congress needs to get out of
the business of picking winners and losers and allow the market to
determine which energy and electricity sources should power our
economy.”

me: Ahh yes, forgive me; I forgot that coal firms were a part of the enviro lobby!  But aside from that, I agree strongly that Waxman-Markey is poor policy.  Do coal investors agree with Exxon that rebated carbon taxes would keep Congress “out of the business of picking winners and losers and allow the market to determine which energy and electricity sources should power our economy”?

Thanks, IER for showing us how “political capitalism” works!

* “Political capitalism” is Rob Bradley`s term for “rent-seeking”

The following is an email message that I sent to Scott Horton, host of Antiwar Radio, regarding his September 18 interview with Bob Murphy. The exchange regarding Bob`s thoughts on the cap and trade bill monstrosity appears at 24:14 to 29:47. (Minor edits and link added.)

Scott, I listened with interest to your interview with Bob Murphy
(http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2009/09/18/antiwar-radio-robert-murphy-6/),
whom I generally like, but feel compelled to point out that Bob was
not being fully honest with you – on an important point – when he
discussed his role in studying and commenting on cap and trade and
energy policy as an economist at the “Institute for Energy Research”.
This group is a part of a lobbying front for big coal and the
utilities that rely on coal – not “big oil”, such as Exxon, which has
specifically stopped funding IER because of its anti-climate change
message and which now expressly supports carbon taxes!

More on IER and Murphy`s involvement with it here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=IER+murphy

In other words, the legitimate criticisms that Murphy can make of cap
and trade (note that Exxon, Jim Hansen and most economists prefer rebated carbon
taxes) – such as existing bills are a way for government to give
favors to insiders – have to be balanced by an awareness that, for the
past few decades, government policy has been heavily skewed in favor
of investors in and consumers of fossil fuels. Murphy talks on this
topic only because he is paid to by the lobbying group that is getting
the shortest end of the stick – big coal.  If only he were honestly
even-handed, instead of in the pay of lobbyists, we might make some
progress in addressing a range of real problems in the energy sector.

Sincerely,

Tom