State lawmakers decided this year to extend the life of the state’s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. That group will make recommendations on what steps, if any, North Carolina should take with respect to global warming and climate change. From its inception in 2005, the commission has veered from its original mission, according to Roy Cordato, vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation. Cordato discussed the commission with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: Roy, you have followed this issue very closely over the last several years. Why does this so concern you?
Cordato: Well, because of all the issues, I think, that have come down the pike since I’ve been at the Locke Foundation, which is since 2001, the global warming issue has the potential of threatening our liberties more than any other issue the state government has gotten involved with. And that’s because it involves the restriction of carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide is part of our everyday life. We all exhale carbon dioxide. We literally cannot live without carbon dioxide. So, if you accept the premise that CO2 is going to be regulated, that it’s a pollutant, that it’s going to be regulated by the state, then that gives the state the power to regulate and control every aspect of our lives. And if you look at what the commission is examining, that’s exactly what it does. It’s looking at regulations of how we travel, where we live, the size of our house, the size of the property that our house can sit on, the kind of electricity that we use, the kind of light bulbs that we use, the kind of car that we drive, and you can go down the list of all the appliances. Pretty much how we live our lives and every aspect of our lives is threatened by the kinds of regulations that are being looked at, with respect to carbon dioxide. The John Locke Foundation, first and foremost, is concerned about liberty, and this is a massive threat to our liberty.
Martinez: Roy, this commission was created in 2005. What was the original mission of this group?
Cordato: Well, it was asked in the enabling legislation to do several things. One of them, for example, was to take the proposals that are under consideration and look at how those proposals, if implemented by the state, nationally and globally – and it specified those three things in the legislation – how it would impact climate. Okay, that seems to be a very logical question to ask. The commission has not even addressed that. And there’s a good reason, because they know all the evidence suggests that if you took everything they’re looking at, and the whole globe adopted it, there would be an imperceptible difference in the climate in the next hundred years. So they don’t want to touch that issue. And, in fact, whenever they talk about the benefits of their program, they never talk about it in terms of climate change, which is bizarre because that’s what the commission is supposed to be about. So, that’s one area where they haven’t touched. Another thing – their enabling legislation says they are supposed to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis. Well, there’s only been one real cost-benefit analysis of the proposals that they are looking at, and that was commissioned by the John Locke Foundation. They’re calling some other things that they’re looking at cost-benefit analysis, but even the people who did it are not calling it cost-benefit analysis. The Center for Climate Strategies has come up with some numbers, which is just really cost analysis – nothing. They admit that it’s not cost-benefit analysis. Appalachian State University’s Energy Center did a jobs analysis, not a full-blown cost-benefit analysis. And they entertained the John Locke Foundation analysis done by Suffolk University in Boston. They allowed our researchers to come in and talk to them. But if we didn’t press that, they would be hearing no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever.
Martinez: Let’s talk about the composition of the people on that commission. There are a number of state legislators – makes sense. But there are others as well. Is there any climate scientist actually on that commission?
Cordato: Originally, the legislation had no climatologist on the commission. The John Locke Foundation and others pressed and said, “This is absurd.”… North Carolina has a state climatologist. They put the state climatologist on the commission.
I’ve been to several meetings, and I haven’t seen the state climatologist there. And if I was him, I’d be pretty frustrated anyway because they’re not listening to what climatologists have had to say. They’ve had two. They’ve had dozens and dozens and dozens of people come and testify, many who were scientists, but only two who are climate scientists. And both of those people took a rather skeptical position toward the state of North Carolina doing anything at all on this issue, but they have pretty much ignored that advice. So there is supposed to be a climatologist presence on the commission. Whether he actually is or not, I’m not sure.
Martinez: Let’s talk about the work that the commission has already done to date. There are more than 50 recommendations, proposals, on the table already. But, based on what you said earlier in this interview, we’re talking about potentially massive control over our lifestyles. Tell us about some of those recommendations and what the concern is. You talked about loss of jobs, higher electricity prices. Tell us more about that.
Cordato: Well, one of the things the state is looking at is a cap-and-trade program, much like the cap-and-trade program that was just defeated in Congress – what was the Lieberman-Warner bill. John McCain also supports a similar kind of legislation for the federal government, and so does Barack Obama.
Martinez: Isn’t cap and trade really energy rationing?
Cordato: It is. Yes. Cap and trade is an energy-rationing program. It simply puts a cap, for all intense and purposes, on the amount of energy that we are allowed to consume, and then it devises a rationing scheme based on people trading their rights to use energy among each other. So, again, it would be a major restriction on our lives.
And they’re proposing that for the state. They’re proposing, essentially, a tax on larger automobiles, which is really a tax on families, because it’s families with two or three kids who need a big automobile to fit those government-mandated seats in the back. And yet they want to tell them they have to drive little cars. What will that do? That’ll force a family going someplace to drive two cars instead of one. I mean, some of these things are absolutely stupid, but anyway, they want to tax that. They want to force insurance companies to charge you based on how many miles you drive every year, which would be a massive intrusion into our lives. And you can go down the list. There are many, many such programs. Land-use restrictions are included.
Martinez: Potentially higher electricity prices?
Cordato: Yes, absolutely, higher electricity prices because they want even further mandates on the use of renewable energies and that sort of thing.