The Star Tribune reports some Minnesota lakes my still be frozen for the fishing opener. The ice remains on lakes longer than it has in over a dozen years. 

By Doug Smith 

With less than three days to go before Minnesota’s fishing opener, ice still stubbornly clings to some northern Minnesota lakes, leaving anglers to wonder if the hard water will be gone on their favorite lake by Saturday.

“We’ve had lots of people calling,” said Pete Boulay of the Department of Natural Resources climatology office. “Everyone wants a forecast. It’s just hard to tell. It probably will be a photo-finish for some lakes.”

It’s the latest ice-out since 1996.

Read the rest of this story at Star Tribune.

Pioneer Press ran a similar story. Predicting ice-out is like “predicting what kind of winter we’ll have way back in October,” Jack Shriver of Shriver’s Bait Co. in Walker was quoted in the article. Perhaps he isn’t aware that climatologists already predict what winters will be like, not just a few months in advance, but for hundreds of years.

By Chris Niskanen 

Lake Winnibigoshish, a walleye fishing Mecca in northern Minnesota, was jammed with ice floes Tuesday.

Bowen Lodge, which sits on Lake Winnie’s shores, is booked solid with anglers coming for Saturday’s state fishing opener. Owner Bill Heig is praying for warm weather.

“We have rain and wind forecasted — that’s what we need to get rid of the ice,” Heig said. “Our customers are very loyal, but if there’s ice on the lake, we’ll have to figure something out.”

For the first time since 1996, ice-covered lakes are threatening to keep anglers off some waters for the opener. Shorelines and some bays are open, but ice was clinging Tuesday to major northern Minnesota fishing destinations such as Rainy Lake, Lake of the Woods, Lake Vermilion and Lake Winnie.

With 1 million anglers ready to fish Saturday, the late ice-out is big news for many northern resort owners, fishing guides and bait store owners. It also has ramifications for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources workers, who are scrambling to install hundreds of docks this week, and officials with the Superior National Forest, which oversees the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

“We’re getting lots of calls. Everybody wants to know if they can get in (to the Boundary Waters),” said Mark Van Every, district ranger for the Kawishiwi District in Ely. “At this point, we can’t give a definitive answer.”

Read the rest of this story at Pioneer Press.

By Max Schulz

California’s proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country - nearly twice the national average - largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves.

The unreliable power grid is starting to rattle some Silicon Valley heavyweights. Intel CEO Craig Barrett, for instance, vowed in 2001 not to build a chip-making facility in California until power supplies became more reliable. This October, Intel opened a $3 billion factory near Phoenix for mass production of its new 45-nanometer microprocessors. Google has chosen to build the massive server farms that will fuel its expansion anywhere but in California.

And yet, despite a desperate need for more power, opposition to energy projects remains prevalent. State law prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants, and legislative efforts last summer to repeal it went nowhere. Last spring state regulators vetoed a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal 14 miles off the Malibu coast.

Read the entire opinion column at the Wall Street Jounal

Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam?

By Steven Milloy

A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased.

Global temperatures remain well below an El Nino-driven 1998 spike despite ever-increasing atmospheric CO2. Global warming hysterics purport that manmade emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of global climate and that controlling emissions will favorably affect climate. While this is obviously not so since it virtually supposes that without human activity climate change would not occur, it nevertheless remains their viewpoint.

The Nature study, however, reasserts Mother Nature in her rightful place as our climate dominatrix. Although there is no evidence that manmade CO2 emissions play any detectable role in climate change, the very idea that Mother Nature may cool the planet despite humanity’s furious output of greenhouse gases should be even worse for the climate alarmists’ way of thinking.

It would mean that greenhouse gas emissions are actually beneficial, since without them, Mother Nature’s cooling could be quite damaging. The last time the Earth significantly cooled was during the 14th to 19th centuries — a period known as the Little Ice Age.

Read the rest of this story at Fox News

By Dennis Avery 

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so. 

For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.

Read the rest of this article at Canada Free Press

Chad Johnson has had enough of global warming hysteria shaping public policy and he wrote a letter to his state senator that has since been passed around to other legislators. His letter expresses the frustration of ordinary citizens. With Mr. Johnson’s permission, a portion of his correspondence is reproduced below.

Senator,

I appreciate your political line of the matter of Global Warming. But it is not shown though in the voting record of Democrats and Republicans alike. Yes we all want clean water and clean air. Our water and air are cleaner then they have been in 100 years. Cars and trucks are 97% more efficient than even since 1970. We, the public are driving more, and the air is getting cleaner by the day. Can you explain that? Well, I can. The programs put in place before this ludicrous Global Warming hysteria, have worked.
 
Did you know that a full size Suburban at 7400 lbs gross weight, getting 21 miles to the gallon on the highway, is 80% more efficient the new Smart car? At 1500 lbs gross weight and 41 miles to the gallon. Its efficiency rating goes down exponentially. Would you rather get into an accident in a Smart Car or a Suburban?
 
Hybrids rape the land. They use Lithium batteries to work. The lithium is strip-mined. It takes 10 tons of ore to make one hybrid battery. The Lithium is no less than lethal than Oil to the environment. It explodes when introduced to water; the batteries must be recycled by experts, and are a danger to first responders in an accident. There is 500 volts running through the drive train. That’s enough to kill anyone unlucky enough to cut the orange wire.
 
Now we are making ethanol. In fact you, in the Minnesota government, are paying farmers to produce it. And the funny thing is it is a bigger pollutant than regular gas. Check out the numbers. You get 1 gallon of released energy from a gallon of gas. You would need the equivalent 2.5 gallons of ethanol to get the same output. Why? Because it is up to 41% less efficient. Plus, it takes 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. The equivalent ratio of power used to make a gallon of gas is 1:1. To make a gallon of ethanol, it’s 3:1, because it has to be distilled. How do you do that? You burn fuel, 3 times more fuel. So what do we have? Ethanol takes 3 times the fuel to make, and is half as efficient to burn. Can you do math? Well the rest of the politicians can’t seem to. And now we are seeing the cost of everything that has anything to do with corn go through the roof.
 
They just released a study on the Kyoto accord. Nations that ratified it saw a 10 to 20% increase in emissions, In that same period the USA saw a 12% drop. Also those same countries saw a much larger drop in their GDP than we did. Why? Because the markets dictated. And they should always be allowed to do so.
 
States have talked about re-enacting the emissions test. Have you ever wondered why the ethanol lobby is against it? So have I, so I checked into it. It turns out, ethanol puts out more particulates them plain gas alone. And because of it, a car burning ethanol cannot pass the emissions standards of the day 14 years ago.
 
There are 300 scientists worldwide that are advancing man-made global warming. Less than half are meteorologists by discipline. On the other side, there are over 600 scientists, of which 400 are meteorologists and many others are from the climatologist field, including the man who founded the Weather Channel. They all seem to think this is part of the normal cycle of our planet. The facts are on their side and not the side of the Global Warming alarmists.
 
When Mount St. Helens erupted a couple of years ago, it released more CO2 and SO2 in one day, than every car in the United States emits in a single year. And it erupted for almost 3 months. So where is all the CO2 coming from? Us, or the earth’s natural processes.
 
When Krakatau exploded in 1883 it lowered the earth’s temperature by 1.2 degrees C for 5 years. Um, yeah. I am pretty sure we made it through that. Oh and by the way, the polar bear made it and the glaciers in Iceland were still there afterwards, I’m pretty sure.
 
“The planet has a fever,” ala Al Gore and it’s called liberalism. What is going on has nothing to do with Global Warming. It is economics, something the Democrats have no clue about. You never raise taxes in an economic down turn, unless you are trying to garner voters.
 
You never institute policies like they are pushing unless you have an agenda. Carbon Credits? Really! AL Gore is a stockholder in the first company to ever offer Carbon Credits. HELLO!!! ANYONE? ANYONE? Wake up now! Before they destroy this country with their complete and utter stupidity.
 
Oh By the way, I have two vehicles. One gets 28 mpg and the other 26. My wife and I carpool every day and we go nowhere unless we have to. But gas is still going up and we are still suffering. Just the rumor of domestic exploration for oil would send the price of oil through the floor. But then the libs would have nothing to campaign on anymore would they?

Sincerely,
Chad Johnson

The allegedly warming earth is in for about 30 years of cooling according to NASA, one of the leading global warming theory advocates.

NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd, writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a decade and a half long cold spell.

“A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific decadal Oscillation – a larger-scale, Slower-cycling ocean pattern – had shifted to its cool phase.”

Notes Shepherd “This shift in the PDO, which could last for 20 or 30 years, can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns.”

And the greatest impact here in the states, he adds, will likely be on west Coast residents, particularly growers.

Warns meteorologist Anthony Watts: “Look out California agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost, among other things.”

Read the rest of the story at NewsMax

Procreation is killing the planet, and traditional religion is to blame, Global-Warming cultists insist.First the industrial revolution had to go. Then it was to the wall with oil company executives, those malignant Carbon Interests. Next, SUVs were declared enemies of the planet.

Now, the left’s attention has shifted back to its perennial targets – large families and “patriarchal” religion.

In a commentary in the April 21st edition of USA TODAY (”Might our religion be killing us?”), Oliver “Buzz” Thomas quotes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a tool of the global village idiots at the United Nations — to the effect that Global Warming, caused by CO2 emissions, will lead to “drought, starvation and species extinction.” (Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies… rivers and seas boiling… forty years of darkness… dogs and cats living together!)

The culprits are religions that oppose birth control and abortion and instruct us regarding fructification and multiplication. Thomas even names names: “Now, consider the Roman Catholic Church’s continued opposition to modern birth control or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ (i.e. Mormons) encouragement of large families… . Many Orthodox Jews and some Muslims also eschew birth control.”

Read the rest of the story at NewsMax

An opinion piece by Steven F. Hayward for the Wall Street Journal, April 28th:

The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush’s recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

“Way too little and way too late,” runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the “80 by 50″ target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president’s target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

Read the rest of this article at the Wall Street Journal.

Turning-up the rhetorical volume has become a more frequent tactic of global warming advocates trying to capture the attention of a skeptical public.  The longer their theories are subjected to public scrutiny, the closer their predictions come to being unfulfilled and the more scientific data that comes to light debunking some of their notions, the more shrill their voice becomes.

During a floor session earlier this week, Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL - St. Paul) raised concerns that kids are living in fear that they won’t grow up because “they’re going to die of global warming,” as if it is some new contagious disease.  Perhaps it is.  It may well be a new psychological disorder spreading through ignorance, shame, groupthink and fear of the unknown.  Chicken Little infected her friends with the same sort of anxiety disorder, leading them all into the den of a cunning fox that promised to help them get to the king and solve the problem of the falling sky.
 
The fable of Chicken Little, having been around since the 6th century, demonstrates either a great prophetic ability on the part of the author or simply that there’s nothing new under the sun.  Group hysteria has led civilizations to self-induced disasters many times in the course of human history and global warming appears to be just the latest example.

Fortunately, we still have legislators who are ruled by reason instead of fear. Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) responded to Anderson’s worry about the children with a discussion of science and suggested that the cure for fear is knowledge and open dialogue.

In early 2007, two University of Minnesota economists forecast that biofuels would sharply increase food prices by 2020, leading to a steep rise in the number of empty bellies in the world.

How wrong they were. Soaring rates of hunger didn’t take a generation. It took a year.

The president of the World Bank recently estimated that 100 million more people around the world have slipped into hunger in the past year, in the wake of soaring oil and food prices.

“The kinds of price increases that we were using out to 2020 already have occurred and been exceeded,” said Benjamin Senauer, one of the authors of an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that raised dire warnings brushed aside by the biofuels industry.

Read the rest of the story at the Star Tribune

The Minnesota Office of Energy Security and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced that the final report of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) is now posted for public review and comment. Citizens can view the report and leave comments on the Office of Energy Security website at www.energy.mn.gov or on the MCCAG website at www.mnclimatechange.us . The public comment period is open until midnight Sunday, April 27, 2008.

All comments submitted through the website will become part of the final report to the Governor and legislature after April 27th, 2008.

The charge of the MCCAG was to consider, evaluate, and compile a multi-sector set of recommended policy options and present them to the Governor and legislature. Appointed by the Governor, the MCCAG comprises a diverse group of stakeholders bringing broad perspective and expertise to the topic of climate change in Minnesota. Members represent the following sectors: energy, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, tourism and recreation, health care, non-governmental organizations, academia, and state and local government.

Click here to submit your comment.

The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970. It was created by founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. senator from Wisconsin.  This year Earth Day will officially be celebrated on Tuesday, April 22, although many events are planned beyond that one day. It is estimated that 1 billion people will come together across the globe to focus on steps to better the environment.

Many schools are making use of an on-line ecological footprint quiz to help students understand how much productive land and water they need to support what they use and what they discard. This is all well and good. All Americans should be good stewards of the environment.

Most troubling, however, is the acceptance that CO2 is a pollutant and greenhouse gas that causes global warming. CO2 gained its celebrity status as a pollutant after a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court. Since then much has been made of the carbon dioxide being pumped out of car tailpipes. This is the same carbon dioxide that is essential in our life support system. Without carbon dioxide there would be no plant or human life.

Read the rest of this letter at the American Thinker

The move away from coal-fired power generation in favor of wind and solar power is already impacting energy costs. Xcel Energy estimates Minnesota’s renewable energy mandates will lead to an average household electric bill increase of $300 to $400 per year.

Adding to the cost problem is an increasing reliance on natural gas for electric generation because of its perceived environmental benefits. Natural gas use for Minnesota power plants has increased nearly 7 fold since 1997. Xcel Energy’s two new gas-fired power plants will increase natural gas consumption even more dramatically in the next year. The two new plants, which will generate about 1,000 megawatts between them, will consume more natural gas than is now used to heat every home in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Increased demand means increased price, especially in the volatile natural gas market.

The trends in natural gas price increases have had an impact on Minnesota families and businesses. Center Point Energy reported 208,000 gas bill delinquencies in 2007 and Minnesota’s Home Energy Assistance expenditures rose 33% between 2005 and 2007.

As we narrow our energy production methods, we run the risk of ever increasing price and scarcity of the fuels we have chosen to use to the exclusion of others.

Even with recent increases in natural gas, US pricing is typically lower than many overseas markets. With the changing global energy market, this suggests that prices still have much further to rise.

Surge in Natural Gas Stoked by New Global Trade
(Ann Davis and Russell Gold - Wall Street Journal)

Americans feeling the pain of record gasoline prices now face the likelihood of another fuel shock, from natural gas.

Prices in the U.S. have risen 93% since late August as power-hungry nations like South Korea and Japan compete in a global natural-gas market that scarcely existed a half-decade ago. Still, U.S. prices are as low as half the level of some overseas markets, suggesting they have much further to rise.

The global appetite for natural gas has profound implications for a U.S. economy already tipping toward recession and struggling against inflation pressures. The fuel heats half of U.S. homes, generates 20% of the country’s electricity and is used to make everything from fertilizer to plastic bags. In March, rising natural-gas prices contributed to a higher than expected 1.1% increase in producer prices, according to the Labor Department.

U.S. natural-gas output has actually been rising in recent months, and not everyone agrees that prices are destined to surge. However, a significant number of financial players are now betting on an increase.

On Thursday a report by the Barclays Capital unit of Barclays PLC warned that, partly because of rising natural-gas prices, the U.S. could start to see spikes in electricity costs in as little as a year. “Power is at the cusp of its next boom cycle,” analysts said. “When power markets tighten, prices do not notch up, they skyrocket.”

Read the rest of this article at the Wall Street Journal

MN Natural Gas Fact Sheet

Minnesota legislators concerned with reducing automotive emissions of greenhouse gasses have devised a drastic plan.

Evidently, state lawmakers don’t trust themselves to establish pollution standards for Minnesota, because the bill they’ve crafted abdicates that authority to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

CARB is a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency and consists of 11 members appointed by California’s governor (Arnold Schwarzenegger). They set emission standards for vehicles sold in California that are twice as ambitious as federal guidelines, requiring 30% lower emissions in less than eight years.

Representative Hortman (DFL – Brooklyn Park) wants to permanently entrust the 11-member California panel with regulatory authority over Minnesota. The bill she introduced (HF863) directs Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency to adopt rules that “must be identical to and must incorporate by reference the California low emission vehicle regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board under the California Code of Regulations, title 13.”

Not only does Representative Hortman intend to adopt current known California regulations, but she intends to do so in perpetuity, giving appointed California bureaucrats the power to enact unknown future regulations for the state of Minnesota.

The bill states that MPCA’s rules “must be amended as necessary in a timely fashion to minimize the time during which Minnesota’s rules are not identical with California’s regulations, as required under United States Code, title 42, section 7507. Amendments under this clause must be made under section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause (3). Any portion of California’s regulations requiring a federal waiver under the Clean Air Act in order to become effective may not be enforced in Minnesota unless and until California receives the requisite federal waiver.”

In their rush to “save the planet,” they forgot to save Minnesota’s sovereignty. A UCLA student would have more influence over Minnesota’s vehicle regulations than any voter or politician in Minnesota would! 

“We’re talking about an 11-member panel in California, that’s going to be regulating the state of Minnesota,” said Representative Tom Hackbarth (R – Cedar), “That’s not the way to operate in our state. I don’t think our legislature wants to give away that kind of authority.”

Auto makers say the California emissions standards (which aren’t even in force in California, since they contradict federal regulations) would sharply increase the cost of automobiles, and limit the number of SUVs and trucks that could be sold in a state where they were implemented. According to the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, Minnesotans buy more trucks than cars, which poses a problem with California Standards. Higher demand SUVs and trucks would have to be rationed. Ford Dealers would have to sell a certain number of Focuses before they could sell an F-150, for example.

If Hortman’s bill is adopted, more expensive vehicles, rationing, and an abdication of Minnesota’s regulatory power to another state’s government bureaucracy will result.

Having betrayed Republicans on all other key issues from education to immigration, the announcement that George W. Bush intends to introduce global warming legislation should come as no surprise.

The Washington Times on Monday reports that, “President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.”

So, having defeated Al Gore in what the Democrats still insist was a stolen election, we have come full circle to George W. introducing legislation to lock into place the bogus theory of global warming, insuring that, as the Earth gives every sign of entering a cooling cycle, we shall continue to destroy the economy by reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

Read the rest of the commentary at CNS News

Two independent studies announced in a press conference today find serious fault with a set of climate change mitigation policy recommendations being used by Minnesota legislators to craft economic, energy and pollution control policies.

The Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) partnered with the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) produced recommendations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota. The resulting report, used by state policy makers is known as the Minnesota Climate Mitigation Action Plan, or MCMAP.

The MCMAP report recommends 46 policy actions with a goal of reducing Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50 million metric tons and estimates the cost of these changes at $726 million.

Minnesota Majority, partnered with the American Property Coalition commissioned a peer review of the MCMAP report. The Beacon Hill institute, a world-renowned economic and statistical research center at Suffolk University, conducted the review. The Beacon Hill review concluded that the MCMAP report provides zero guidance to policy makers, fails to perform the most basic task of any cost/benefit analysis and that MCMAP’s cost savings estimates are not just wildly optimistic, but are the product of a purely fictitious analysis.

The Minnesota Free Markets Institute undertook it’s own review of MCCAG’s policy recommendations, and exposed further weaknesses in the plan. That analysis found MCCAG’s assumptions and recommendations for land use, transportation and agricultural policies to be unrealistic, and in some cases, contrary to recently enacted laws. MCCAG’s emphasis on increasing the cost of driving and reducing investment in roads came under particular criticism.

Members of the MCCAG group themselves have raised concerns about the MCMAP report. Will Anthony said the costs and impacts need deeper analysis. Jim Marchessault, another member and business owner expressed reservations about cap and trade, saying, “It appears to me [that cap and trade is] a hidden tax that government will force utilities to collect and raise everyone’s energy costs.”

MCCAG claims it’s recommendations will save Minnesota millions, perhaps even billions of dollars, but the MCMAP report failed to take collateral costs into account.

Were the policies recommended by MCCAG fully implemented, fuel, electricity, and construction costs will escalate and increasing ethanol mandates will drive up the cost of food. Everything from cereals, milk, eggs, cheese, beef and poultry will cost consumers more.

A study conducted by Science Applications International assessed the economic impacts of similar climate change mitigation policy recommendations. Estimates for Minnesota show some alarming costs, including gross state product losses of $4 – 12 billion, average household income losses ranging between $3,400 and $8,000 per year, heating, fuel and electricity costs more than doubling, and job losses between 33,000 and 74,000.

MCCAG proposes to take Minnesota down a road fraught with economic pitfalls without ever quantifying the supposed benefits. The costs of implementing the MCMAP plan can be quantified. The benefits are nebulous, and even the cost of inaction hasn’t yet been established, if indeed, cost is the operative. If warming is occurring, some would argue it’s an overall benefit.

Representative Mike Beard (R – Shakopee) pointed out that periods of warming have historically brought mankind the greatest periods of prosperity and longevity. “I’d rather have long life and great cathedrals than cold, disease and famine,” he said, comparing the colder Dark Ages to the 300-year warming period of the Middle Ages.

Reviews of the MCMAP plan show that the benefits (if any) of policies geared toward stopping climate change are unknown but the costs are sure to give Minnesota sticker-shock.

Resources

• Beacon Hill Peer Review
• Minnesota Free Markets Institute Policy Memo
• MCCAG Report

In the News

• Pioneer Press
• Star Tribune
• Minnesota Public Radio

As the United States tries to reduce emissions and become more energy independent, energy efficiency will likely play a major part in achieving these goals. But should the government be incentivizing consumers to lead more efficient lifestyles? During today’s OnPoint, Thomas Tanton, a fellow in environmental studies at the Pacific Research Institute discusses his new white paper, written for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, discussing California’s demand-side management program (DSM). The paper, “California’s Energy Policy: A cautionary tale for the nation,” takes aim at the DSM and explains why it should not be implemented nationally. Tanton says the DSM has not yielded energy usage reductions on its own and he explains why he believes other states would not be successful in reducing their energy usage in this way.

watch video at E&ETV

In a wide-ranging hour-long interview on PBS, CNN Founder and billionaire environmental extremist Ted Turner let the cat out of the bag on the real goal of climate change extremists - depopulation.  Pro-life activists who have attended UN environment meetings where such issues were discussed have often been the subject of ridicule and derision for pointing out that the massive movement behind global warming, retooled to ‘climate change’, works hand in hand with the culture of death with the aim of depopulation.Speaking on PBS’s Charlie Rose program on Tuesday, April 1, Turner stated plainly that next to nuclear disarmament the most pressing world concern is “global climate change” - which he said is caused by too many people.  “We’re too many people. That’s why we have global warming,” explained Turner when Rose questioned his comment that we need to “stabilize the population.”

Turner, a fan of China’s one-child policy - despite the brutality of forced abortion and sterilizations which are associated with it - proposed similar limits on family size for all.  “We’ve got to stabilize population,” he told Rose.  “On a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it.”

Read the rest of the story at LifeSiteNews.com

The debate about global warming is over, say environmental activists. Now comes the hard task of developing a national global warming policy. To use nightmare scenarios to forge national policies the activists have decided to circumvent the outgoing Bush administration - and more to the point, Congress - and get state governors to follow their advice. That’s where the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) comes in. CCS persuades governors to appoint “study commissions” on global warming, then steers the policy process, rigging commission proceedings to produce a predetermined result: higher energy costs, diminished property and other individual rights, and more Big Government. These undemocratic maneuvers do an end-run around state legislators and should trouble advocates of open government.

Click here to read the full report from Capital Research Center

An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate.Propelled by mounting anxieties over soaring oil costs and climate change, biofuels have become the vanguard of the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they’re serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing global warming.

But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.

Read the full story at Time Magazine