South Carolina Endorses Green Socialism

Back in 2007, Gov. Mark Sanford created the South Carolina Climate, Energy & Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC). Today, it was announced that CECAC had produced it’s final paper on the results. And they are scary…

First, what I didn’t notice until now is the composition of the group. Take a look through the list. Notice anything? There’s lots of academics, industry leaders and special interest groups represented. But not a single “common man”. Nobody is there representing the people of South Carolina. Which makes the recommendations not that surprising.

Here’s the final report in all of it’s glory. Covering 600+ pages, I doubt that anyone is going to take the time to read through all of it’s heft, including the myriad of policy suggestions that the group is making. Here, I’m going to focus on the “cross-cutting” issues, because those are the policy ideas that are the most disturbing to me, and to anyone who values freedom of ideas.

Mostly this is on the basis of “education”. This is the FIRST paragraph on their education section:

A well-articulated, meaningful, broadly implemented and sustained educational process is the means to achieve effective and durable actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Much of
the response to climate change requires a disciplined alteration in lifestyle that shares many things in common with a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, people have to be motivated to attempt and succeed with basic changes in lifestyles. Individual responsibility, community action, conservation, and prevention are the principles upon which change of this magnitude is accomplished. It is no less than a shift in culture. The effort will benefit all aspects of society.

The educational process must define the basic aspects of climate change, including the evidence for cause-and-effect issues; it must specify the significance of climate change for the target audience and each individual; it must clarify and emphasize the role of the target audience and each of its members for a plan of action to mitigate and adapt to climate change; and it must relate the necessary changes in all aspects of people’s lives and their basic beliefs and values— e.g., health, environment, and economic viability.

Public education and outreach programs must build upon existing efforts and institutions, avoid unnecessary duplication, and promote best practices. The sustained success of policy actions recommended by the CECAC, as well as those that might evolve in the future, depends upon lifestyle changes resulting from education, experience, and practice. (All emphasis added)

This is a shocking amount of changing people that’s involved here. But that’s just the start of it. Here are some sections of the policy recommendations that should be, at the least worrisome for anyone who values academic freedom:

• Future generations—Integrate climate change and healthy lifestyle issues into educational
  curricula, post-secondary degree programs, and professional licensing. Emphasize the common basis and goals of response to climate change with protecting the environment and
  achieving optimum health for all people. Consider creating the South Carolina Health Corps, as outlined in Annex B of this document.

• What this means: Teachers will HAVE to follow the party line if they want to be certified as teacher. It will also mean that some climate change education may become required for graduation from HS or college, and this education will have an environmentalist bend to it. I’ll go into the Hitler Youth Health Corps further down.
• The coordinators for each of the target audiences should be credible with those audiences and have the ability to recruit and energize statewide networks of volunteers within each target audience. The state legislature should provide funding for the basic operations of the committee and the coordinators. Funding should be structured in such a way as to take maximum advantage of established mechanisms for education of each of the audiences.
• What this means: The idea is to get as many people “fired up” about climate change as possible. And it’s going to be paid for by your money, whether you like it or not.
• Level of Group Support: Unanimous
• What This Means: All of the people in the advisory panel approved of these measures. There was probably strong pressure to put out a united front (about 90% of these had unanimous approval). I don’t know how you get 20+ supposedly independent people together and get them to agree THIS MUCH on something as controversial as climate change/environmentalism. This goes to speak to the probability that the people put on the committee were selected more on ideological purity than representativeness.
• The state legislature should provide funding to support development and ongoing revision to the
  state Climate Change Adaptation Plan, including (but not limited to) funds to support the analyses needed to guide and inform the development and implementation of the plan and to cover expenses incurred by the Commission on Adaptation to Climate Change and its members.

• What This Means: A legislative blank check for the panel. Not surprising considering that this is coming from the group that would BENEFIT from the blank check.
• Add climate change to public education performance standards for science and social studies; identify gaps in climate change education and specific curricula to fill gaps. [From their notes] Someone has to be the initial teacher of the science of climate change. Integrate climate change and sustainability into core college curricula. (A more direct way of saying what I gleaned from above.)
• Introduce core competencies on climate change into professional licensing programs (energy efficiency in building design and construction, use of recycled materials, etc.).
• What This Means: Now even your plumber has to know the party line on climate change.
• Identify individual community leaders who are not yet acting on climate change, and make a special effort to educate and encourage them to act.
• What This Means: Target the politicians and those in the community who do not parrot the environmentalist/global alarmist policy. May include shaming or punishing those people.
• Develop and use a state-based “brand” on climate awareness and action.
• What This Means: You probably start seeing the Palmetto Tree/Crescent Moon tied into environmentalist agitprop. Possibly the same with “Carolina Girls: Greenest in the World”.

And that’s just ONE section. I’m going to go after the Hitler Green Youth in my next post, because it’s just that troublesome.

And these ideas are not just limited to South Carolina, as 30 other states have done something very similar. For example, compare the South Carolina website to the Montana website, or the Vermont website.

Look similar. I can only hope that South Carolina didn’t spend too much for the Center for Climate Strategy’s expertise. Because they’re pretty much copying the same exact template for every state. Which means that it’s pretty likely that Gov. Sanford got steamrolled on this one. Which is a shame, because Gov. Sanford is supposed to be a maverick Republican, who’s supposed to be a hawk on fiscal issues. I guess not here.

National Party Platforms on Transportation and Energy – Green Party

I have to give credit where credit is due: the Green Party is very, very open about what they want to do. Sure it’ll involve massive government intervention in everyone’s daily life, but they’re putting it out there in very specific terms.

The entire platform (including changes from 2004 to 2008) on energy and transportation policy, which they call “Ecological Sustainability” is available from the GP website. Unlike the Libertarian Party, the Greens are very specific about what they would like to do.

So lets see what they have on energy:

• “Our oil and gas addiction in particular has led to wars and human rights abuses in many countries….U.S. dependence on oil and gas has driven an unparalleled assault on the global environment and on human rights in many nations.” Of course, if we were to not use oil or natural gas anymore, these third world countries would be liberal democracies with no disputes or conflict whatsoever. This, of course, confuses the fact that the countries themselves start these wars. There are plenty of countries that have petroleum resources that don’t abuse their citizens (e.g. Canada), and there are countries that DON’T have oil resources and DO abuse their citizens (e.g. Zimbabwe). Removing the oil would not remove the source of these problems (the backwards societies and the lack of governing structure)
• “We oppose energy utility deregulation…. We recognize that deregulation and its reliance on markets – as opposed to state-based regulations – is incapable of providing affordable, reliable and clean energy…. We support state efforts to regain control over electricity by establishing democratic, public control systems to locally coordinate supply and demand and by eliminating energy trading.” It’s funny how people have no idea how economics (and socialism) work. PUCs are NOT democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and the current market system somehow does enable people to have affordable and reliable energy, and if you’re in a fully deregulated market like Texas, you can have clean energy too. If you’re in California or most other states, you have no choice in where you get your electricity and it’s “cleanliness”. But the Greens see markets as bad, no matter if they actually enable clean energy or not.
• “New construction should be required to achieve substantial portions of its heating energy from the sun.” Man, I’d hate to live in the Pacific Northwest under the Greens.
• “We oppose further oil and gas drilling or exploration – especially that which would occur in other countries, (emphasis mine)” I’d LOVE to see how they’d enforce banning oil exploration in other countries. This further enforces the general criticism of the enviros as wanting to keep the poor countries poor.
• “We call for independent, public-access radiation monitoring at all nuclear facilities.” If you want to do this, do this. Go to your nearest nuclear power plant, set up shop with a Geiger counter, and report your results. I’m not going to stop you and if the government does, then THAT’s your problem. But you don’t need the government to do this for you.

And their section on transportation:

• “We call for major public investment in mass transportation, so that such systems are cheap or free to the public and are safe, accessible, and easily understandable to first-time users. ” hahaha Short of spending TRILLIONS on mass transit, you’re never going to get all three… and since we’re talking about the government running this system, you’re NEVER going to get anything that’s easily understandable. No matter how much you spend.
• “The present-day approach of upgrading streets to accommodate increased traffic generates new traffic because access is now easier, and people will now take jobs further from their homes or purchase homes further from their jobs. Some people shift from public transit to private cars due to the trip time in cars being shorter. As patronage for public transit decreases, public transit loses funding, becomes less viable, and service deteriorates thus encouraging even more people to use their cars. ” This is the best part, the Greens admit that people don’t like taking transit, admit that private transport is faster, and that public transit wouldn’t work without massive subsidies. So, their solution is to make people do something they would prefer not to do in the first place. A winning political strategy.
• “Redirect resources that currently go to enhancing auto capacity into expanding human-scale transit options….Develop affordable mass transit systems that are more economical to use than private vehicles. ” What the hell is a human-scale transit option? And I’d love to see the day when a public mass transit system is more economical to use than a private system. That’s also the day communism will finally work. And pigs will fly.
• “Emphasize the use of light and heavy rail for freight transportation. ” WHY? It’s slower, it has a lot more delays and is constrained in where and how it can go. An airplane or truck can bypass congestion. A train can’t. Just ask anyone who’s taken Amtrak. Speaking of which…
• “Expand our country’s network of rail lines, including high-speed regional passenger service.” Because outside of the Northeast, there is not a single place that is built in a similar way to that region. So you’d be trying to shoehorn a system that works (barely) in one region, where it’s not needed elsewhere. And as most people who take Amtrak can attest to, Amtrak is beset by delays and general incompetence.
• “Ban flights between cities where land-based travel options can get a passenger to their destination within four hours.” Since you have the Acela, all of the Northeast just lost their air service… sorry. Not to mention the whole hub-and-spoke system for the airline industry. So for example, I live in Columbia, SC. Since nobody in their right minds wants to travel to Columbia, there are not many direct flights, so you have to have connections in many cities. Thus, you have alot of flights from Columbia to Atlanta (4 hours away) and Charlotte (1 hour away). Congrats, you no longer can fly that route. So this will either:
  1. Force people to drive up to 4 hours to get to the airport
  2. Force airlines to have you connect from somewhere MORE THAN 4 hours away.

  Either way, you’ve just made the whole air travel system ALOT more complicated and wasteful. But environmentalists are pretty ignorant when it comes to the law of unintended consequences. And to put a cherry on top of their economic backwardness…

• “We encourage the social ownership and use of land at the community, local, and regional level.” The Greens have never studied or heard about the Tragedy of the Commons.

So overall, the Greens have set out an expansive list of things they want to do, which is ballsier than most political parties. Of course, given that most of what they want to do would be economically wasteful at best, it’s not a very smart plan either.

Stephen Spruiell on Energy & Environment on National Review Online

Stephen Spruiell on Energy & Environment on National Review Online

Sigh… is there any more reason to realize that Republicans made a huge mistake in nominating John McCain?  They’re going through all of these problems trying to square the platform with the candidate.  Of course, in a rational electoral system, the candidate would reflect the base and not have to be grafted together like “trying to write a lawsuit against yourself.”

But as a result, Republicans have now gone along with the environmental movement in calling all this “climate change” instead of “global warming.”  Which is a tautology, or some kind of logical infallacy, since CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING. Somehow, this society has become so narcissitic that the current climate SHOULD be the only climate on Earth for as long as humans remain here.  Try telling that to the people of North Africa, who have been screwed the past 1000 years or so with advancing desert conditions, which cannot be explained away in the past 50 years of industrial development.

So in continuing with my plan to review all of the party platforms, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to like what I see in the Republican platform when it is formally adopted next week.

Pickens Plan a Bridge to Gore Plan

From Bloomberg:

While Pickens views his own proposal as a “bridge to where Al wants to go,” there are no plans now to coordinate.

“He asked if we could we join together and do something; I told him no, because global warming is on page two for me,” Pickens, founder and chairman of Dallas-based BP Capital LLC, said. “Page one is foreign oil.”

“There are some pieces where they might differ,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. Gore’s “feeling is they have more in common than the elements that might separate their proposals.”

I’d like to see where reliable energy is on Pickens (or Gore’s) pages. Somewhere near page 387, I’m guessing. So if there’s some brownouts or blackouts (the equivalent of Lenin’s “If you want to make an omelet, you must be willing to break a few eggs), then so be it. So what if our economy devolves into something seen in Africa, just so long as it is clean energy.

Just remember that whenever you see or hear “The Pickens Plan”, just substitute “The Gore Plan” instead.

Simple answers to silly questions

Question: How does the United States attain energy independence?

Answer: Ban energy imports.

Oh, you don’t like that answer? Well, that’s the only way we’ll get there.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by energy independence. First there’s the neo-mercantilist/conservative view, which is independent from foreign energy. Because the foreigners have lower labor and production costs, any reduction in cost as a result of moving to a different energy plan will drive out domestic suppliers first. Look to the 1980’s and remember all the wildcatters in Texas capping the wells. That’s what will happen when prices go down when demand decreases while supply increases (e.g. late 70’s to the early 90’s). So the only way to not let those dirty, anti-American foreigners get our money is to not buy their goods. So you have to ban energy imports.

Or you’re a liberal/environmentalist, who believes energy independence is being independent from any energy. Here, there’s a couple of ways of doing it. The most harmful is to tell people to not use energy. It’s anti-freedom and will be costly to enforce (you try being the one to tell people they can’t use their AC in the South during the summer). The second-best option is to make people want to use less energy. Right now, there’s the going green movement, which is basically a way of shaming people into using less energy. It’s working, but it can only go as far as people are willing to believe the guilt. The more powerful motivator is economics, more specifically prices. Using gas prices as an example, during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, people were alot more willing to carpool and use less gas when gas was at $4.50 a gallon (remember this is 2005). More to the point, it was a sudden increase that forced people to change. Drivers can adapt their habits when the price doubles over a span of many years (prices went from $1 to $2 between 1996 and 2005), but are in much more of a shock when the price increases much faster ($2 to $4 between 2005 and now). When you’re in shock, you’re more willing to make more drastic changes. If you’re in favor of decreasing the use of gasoline, then faster increases are preferable to slower ones (Yes, I’m talking to you, Sen. Obama).

So no matter if you’re Sean Hannity or Nancy Pelosi, there’s one fast and easy solution to energy independence. Make the US an island. That is, if you’re really interested in the idea and not using it as a political point. Somehow, I think that may just very well be the case with “energy independence”.