Climate Change Commission
Recommendation
Policymakers should protect citizens from improperly considered policies that attempt to address global warming.
Background
The North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change plans to issue interim policy recommendations that it believes North Carolina should implement to alleviate possible future global warming. When viewed in light of the tasks charged to the Commission by the legislature in 2005, it is clear that any policy recommendations will necessarily be premature.
How the Commission Has Ignored its Own Mandate
• The Commission is not following the law. The legislation creating the Commission, S.L. 2005-242 (SB 1134), states that the Commission "shall conduct an in-depth examination" of several areas as listed in the table on page 13. The Commission has not only failed to make an "in depth examination" in the majority of these areas, it has also ignored several of the most crucial issues.
• The Commission has not heard direct testimony on the most important question. The most important area for examination is "the extent to which reductions in the emissions of [greenhouse] gases in the State, region, and worldwide could be expected to affect global climate change." The effectiveness of any policy proposal hinges on this question. To date, the Commission has not heard any direct expert testimony on this question.
• The Commission seems to be ignoring what it has heard. Indirect testimony on whether certain policies could have an impact on global climate change came as part of general presentations by the only two climatologists to speak to the Commission. They suggested that even a worldwide effort along the lines proposed for North Carolina would not have a measurable impact over a time frame of 100 to 200 years.
• The Commission has neglected other parts of its mandate. For example, it has heard no testimony from climate scientists regarding possible natural causes of global warming, as required in § 5(1)(a). This is in spite of research arguing that half the warming experienced in the last century has been caused by increased intensity of the sun.
| Text from S.L. 2005-242 § 5(1)(a-g):
This examination shall include all of the following:
a. A review of current scientific literature on the possible natural and anthropogenic causes of global climate change.
b. A review of actions taken by the federal government and by other states to address global warming.
c. An examination of the emissions of greenhouse gases from within the State and the extent to which reductions in the emissions of these gases in the State, region, nation, and worldwide could be expected to affect global climate change.
d. An evaluation of the economic opportunities for the State that may result from international, national, and State action to address global climate change and the emerging carbon market.
e. The potential impacts of global climate change on the citizens, natural resources, and economy of the State, including agriculture, travel and tourism, recreation, coastal real estate, insurance, and other economic sectors.
f. The costs of any action taken by the State to address global climate change on individuals, individual households, local governments, businesses, educational institutions, agricultural operations, the State government, and other institutions and economic sectors.
g. The benefits of any action taken by or within the State or other states and at the national or international levels to address global climate change on individuals, individual households, local governments, businesses, educational institutions, agricultural operations, the State government, and other institutions and economic sectors. |
• The Commission has not considered the costs and benefits. It has not heard testimony regarding the costs and benefits of proposals that they are considering, as mandated in §§ (1)(e-g). Any policy recommendations would be justified only if, in light of sound economic cost/benefit analysis, the benefits to current and future North Carolinians outweighed the costs that the policy would impose.
• The Commission's actions are troubling. The Commission has either been lazy in pursuing its legislative mandate or, worse, willfully negligent in an attempt to advance a preordained policy agenda. In either case, the General Assembly should insure that its original mandate is adhered to.
Analyst: Dr. Roy Cordato
Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar
919/828.3876 • rcordato-at-johnlocke.org
|
