There was an opinion piece in today’s Helena IR by one Bob Decker, executive director of the rabidly left wing Policy Institute think tank based in Helena which appears to be a not so subtle attempt to persuade our state lawmakers to remove or discount the public survey regarding the final report of Governor Schwietzer’s Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee (which I blathered on about here). Somewhat Shorter Bob:
The survey-taker is asked to pass judgment on recommendations described in energy jargon. Some recommendations are understandable… while others are obscure…
Though John and Jane Montanan aren’t likely to participate in the survey, advocacy groups and business interests aligned on various sides of the climate change issue will marshal troops in a reactionary effort to win an irrelevant skirmish that detracts decision-makers from meaningful deliberation on a subject of profound importance.
For John and Jane Montanan, who don’t have the same intimacy with an arcane study, it’s something best left to, well, the people they elected to deal with such matters.
The real questions [not addressed in the study] center on how much EQC [The Environmental Quality Council] members care about the impacts of climate change, whether mitigation is possible, what role state government should play in addressing the issue, and whether the Legislature should pursue the energy-conserving recommendations of the Climate Change report that offer BOTH reduced carbon emissions and significant economic benefit to Montanans.
The EQC could answer those questions through open debate of firm policy proposals, a majority-rules method of resolution, and the presentation of preferred actions in readily understood language and numbers. Then it would be a good time for public input.
Sorry, Bob, but I’d like to voice my opinion on this “subject of profound importance”, whether you think I’m mentally capable of doing so or not. I’m sure you’d like the proposals to be drawn up before you let the little people in on the process; it would be one less hurdle for you to overcome before implementing them, but thankfully the bureaucrats who agreed to this idea didn’t follow your preferred game plan on its implementation. I agree that advocacy and business groups may try to marshal a response, but what the hell is wrong with that? They do represent real people with real interests in the outcome, after all.
Further, as James helpfully pointed out in the comments of my previous post, the executive summary of the report (pdf) was generous in its gratitude for the help of the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a group that oddly echoes Bob’s concerns about the involvement of the peasantry:
The final results of our work are concrete and measurable. Governors can issue Executive Orders and take administrative actions, and legislatures can pass bills or provide support to implement far-reaching climate-friendly policies.
James also pointed me to some interesting reading/links regarding what CSS is and who is underwriting them. If you follow the many many links through, you’ll see that CSS is nothing more than a liberal issue advocacy group (of course they claim otherwise); one that we hired to help throw shackles on our freedom. Gee, thanks Governor Schwietzer, your real position regarding the issue is showing.
Finally, like many progressive organizations of the day, we can’t readily see who is funding The Policy Institute, but I sure would like to compare their donor list with that of CSS. Oh well, we all know how the left values openness and transparency. It’s this kind of back door policy subversion that really puts a stick in my craw, and I’m sure it would bother a lot of other Montanans too, if they knew it was going on. Of course, that is probably the idea to begin with.
Comments 11
His respect for opposing viewpoints is amply demonstrated in this quote: “That meaningful deliberation isn’t about whether climate change is occurring or whether human behavior plays a part in the phenomenon. Despite bluster from EQC members (mostly Republicans) and media coverage still infatuated with the is-it-happening-or-not? story line that left its moorings with reality long ago, no member of the EQC has yet put up an inspired case against the existence of climate change.”
Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶Good point GeeGuy; it’s kind of like me claiming that dark matter is made of cream cheese and I must be right because nobody in the Montana legislature has disputed it.
Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶IOW, “Shut up and do what your betters tell you.”
Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 7:06 pm ¶“The Policy Institute”. Isn’t it surprising that its ‘Registered Agent’ is Ken Toole? No, not really. It’s just another of many off-shoots of the Montana Human Rights Network. We are heading for some dangerous times if they have their way.
Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶I noticed that too, James. The spider web of influence is beginning to resemble the internet, all connected, but no one responsible, as far as we know. As for your dangerous times, indeed:
This should be interesting to watch, in the same way that a car wreck is interesting to watch. Whose legs will get severed first?
Craig- You’re learning me some new lingo every day. IOW…I thought, hmm, is that some new Linux code or something? But google is my friend, and my skilz are showing. As for your point; I don’t think I’ll ever understand those who don’t take offense at such condescension, or those who willingly accept such a concept.
Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 11:18 pm ¶Acronyms like “IOW” mean, in a nutshell, I’m really F-in lazy.
But then again, I think you’ve surmised that about me.
And I about you.
Heh.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 12:04 am ¶I see in the March 2008 ‘The Interim’ that CCS is sitting in on the review of survey by/for the EQC…. “The Center for Climate Strategies, a nonprofit organization that worked with the Climate Change Advisory Committee, as well as a representative from the governor’s office, also will be invited to the EQC meeting.” The way they throw in that word nonprofit is sweet.
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 9:38 pm ¶The March newsletter also reports, regarding The Energy and Telecommunications Interim Committee, that the “Committee may recommend carbon sequestration legislation…”. I read this and wonder how much my bills will go up. ‘The Back Page’ of the newsletter is an interesting article by a Legislative Research Analyst titled “What’s Your Climate Doing” that should be fun.
Once again, that’s a great find James. I’m almost tempted to attend that meeting. We’ll see how my stomach feels that day-I’m not sure I can handle much more of this garbage.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:28 pm ¶Not to keep harping on this, but more for the record…. the results from the Climate Change Action Plan survey can be viewed here.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 10:15 am ¶Thanks James, I noted that. What surprised me were the results. I expected the support numbers to bury the opposition, considering the unscientific nature of the poll and the tendency of the greenies to mobilize for such things. I guess somebody missed the Action Alert!
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:19 pm ¶i am gonna show this to my friend, brother
Posted 24 Mar 2008 at 6:54 pm ¶Post a Comment