June 9, 2008
RALEIGH — Lawmakers should not extend the work of their state climate commission, unless that group stops ignoring the will of the legislature and starts doing the job it was assigned to do. A John Locke Foundation analyst offers that recommendation in a new Spotlight report.
Click here to view and here to listen to Daren Bakst discussing this Spotlight report.
“North Carolinians deserve legitimate, thoughtful work on an issue of such magnitude,” said report author Daren Bakst, JLF Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst. “Unfortunately, the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change has not conducted that type of work. The General Assembly should demand legitimate, thoughtful work from this group or shut it down.”
Formed in 2005, the climate commission saw its legislative authorization expire April 15. Supporters filed House Bill 2529 to allow the commission to continue working until April 1, 2009. The N.C. House Environment and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill today. Now the measure heads to the full House.
“Legislators should not support this proposal unless they demand some changes in the way the commission does business,” Bakst said. “The good news is that the necessary changes are relatively simple. The changes would also help the climate commission address its original mandate from 2005.”
That original mandate included important analysis that has been ignored during the past three years, Bakst said. “There has been no discussion or analysis to clarify the impact any state policies would have on global warming,” he said. “In other words, no one on the commission can say that any of the policies they’re pursuing would have any impact on reducing the increase in global temperatures.”
The climate commission also ignored the General Assembly’s 2005 mandate to study the costs and benefits of any state actions designed to address climate change, Bakst said. “Instead of conducting a legitimate cost-benefit analysis, the commission has primarily looked to analysis from an advisory group controlled and directed by a global warming alarmist organization,” he said. “That alarmist organization not only failed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, it also selected all of the policy options that the advisory group chose from — not exactly an independent process.”
Rising energy costs make a cost-benefit analysis critical to the commission’s work, Bakst said. “With gasoline at about $4 per gallon and summer electric bills about to kick in, it is irresponsible to consider climate policies that would increase energy prices drastically,” he said. “The commission should examine and identify the impact that those proposed policies would have on energy costs in North Carolina.”
Lawmakers should also restructure the commission’s membership, Bakst said. “At least 10 left-of-center groups or individuals have a vote on the commission,” he said. “There is no vote for consumer or taxpayer groups. No conservative and free-market views are represented. Fairness and balance dictate that the commission should represent a wider range of views.”
With or without new viewpoints, the commission should permit members to submit minority reports, Bakst said. “The option of presenting a minority report would allow commission members to distinguish the ideas they support from those they oppose,” he said. “They could offer precise explanations for their decisions. Members would feel less pressure to endorse policy proposals they don’t support.”
Commission members should also be required to submit a final report, rather than incomplete, misleading interim reports, Bakst said. “An interim report offers the global warming alarmists a clever way to hide the whole picture from other commission members and from the General Assembly,” he said. “Rather than assessing all climate change policies as a whole, policies based on interim reports can hide the true costs.”
“Like a frog in a pot of water that’s slowly heating, taxpayers and voters would slowly face increasing costs as commission members and the legislature endorse new climate change measures bit by bit,” Bakst added.
North Carolina deserves a single report with full analysis of the costs and potential climate impact of proposed global warming policies, Bakst said. “No one’s asking the climate commission to accomplish an impossible task,” he said. “The group should simply do the job the General Assembly assigned for it in 2005. Compile a report that spells out the costs and benefits of proposed climate change policies, so lawmakers and taxpayers can make informed decisions.”
Daren Bakst’s Spotlight report, “End the Commission — Or Mend It: The Climate Change Commission fails to stick to its mission,” is available at the JLF Web site. For more information, please contact Bakst at (919) 828-3876 or [email protected]. To arrange an interview, contact Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or [email protected].