Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee, Part I
April 2nd, 2008 | by Craig |Citizens’ Voice Subverted by Agenda-Driven Interests?
There is a nifty think tank down in Bozeman, called PERC, the Property and Environment Resource Center. They’re pretty low-key, but they do put out some good stuff. Mostly, they are focused on market-based solutions to environmental problems.
I’ve linked to their stuff at least on one occasion, and here’s what happens. The sinestra descends en masse, not to discuss the issues, but to remind you that the organization gets its money from (drum roll, please): CORPORATIONS. That, to them, is enough. It’s money from corporations, and therefore tainted. If the advocacy is in their favor, well, then that’s OK, since the ends justify the means.
To be sure, donations to these groups are clearly intended to affect policy. No matter which side of a debate you’re on, advocacy groups are putting money into 501c3’s, 501c4’s and all kinds of groups for the sole purpose of changing policy. If a legislator wants to use a document in the process, from either side, I’m 100% fine with that. That’s the way it should work.
Just getting that out of the way.
You may have missed this story in the Montana press recently. The headline was, “GOP disputes warming findings.” Here are the first 3 grafs:
Efforts to begin writing would-be laws from dozens of proposals contained in a state global-warming report hit a familiar speed bump Monday night: Republican skepticism that human activity causes global warming.
“This is all flawed, and it’s based on flawed everything,” said Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, of the science explaining global climate change. “This is a lie. Call it what it is.”
McGee, a member of the Environmental Quality Council, was among several GOP lawmakers who disputed the foundations behind the 54 recommendations made late last year in a report by the governor-appointed Climate Change Advisory Council.
Wow, a story about the GOP? You’d think so. Most of the quotes are from GOP legislators, and those quotes are framed in such a way that they appear entirely unreasonable, while quotes from the other side appear to be calm and reasoned. Anyone who has been interviewed for a news story knows how much of your tale ends up on the cutting room floor, but that’s how you frame stories. Sad to say, it’s pretty typical of what we see in the Montana press — especially those who cover our state government — in that certain items are taken uncritically, while the other side is simply made fun of.
But wait. What was that about the Climate Change Advisory Council?
Let’s look into that.
On December 13, 2005 Governor Schweitzer issued a letter directing the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) to establish a Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC), a broad based group of Montana citizens appointed by the Governor to develop a state climate action plan by July 2007. Under MT DEQ’s direction, this initiative will examine state level greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) opportunities in all sectors in Montana, and take into consideration opportunities to “save money, conserve energy, and bolster the Montana economy.” The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) will work in partnership with MT DEQ to provide facilitation and technical support for climate action planning process to meet these goals.
The goals of this process include:
1) Development of a current and comprehensive inventory and forecast of GHG emissions in Montana from 1990 to 2020;
2) Development of a comprehensive set of individual policy recommendations to the Governor to reduce GHG emissions in Montana. The CCAC process will seek (but not mandate) consensus on these findings and recommendations. Statewide GHG reduction goals, to the extent that they are developed, will be based on further discussions with MT DEQ and this group.1
Fair enough. These panels are appointed all the time. The appointment was duly noted by the Montana press, along with the members.
From the Gazette:
Members of the council include Tim Gregori of Billings, general manager of the Southern Montana Electricity Generation & Transmission Co-op, which is building a coal-fired power plant near Great Falls; Mark Lambrecht of Helena, PPL Montana’s manager for regulatory affairs; and Shane Morgensen of Billings, a geophysicist for Nance Petroleum Corp.
Also on the council are organic farmer Robert Boettcher of Big Sandy; rancher Trudi Peterson of Judith Gap; Mary Fitzpatrick of Billings, a member of Montana Conservation Voters; Pat Judge of Helena, a staff member for the Montana Environmental Information Center; Dave Ryan of the National Center for Appropriate Technology in Butte; Gloria Flora of Helena, former supervisor of the Lewis and Clark National Forest; and Steve Loken of Missoula, with the Center for Resourceful Building Technology.
The remaining members are Cascade County Commissioner Peggy Beltrone of Great Falls; Rep. Sue Dickenson, D-Great Falls; Sen. Gary Perry, R-Manhattan; Public Service Commissioner Bob Raney of Livingston; Teamsters official Mark Brandt of Great Falls; middle school science teacher Buck Buchanan of Belgrade; Northern Cheyenne tribal planner William Walks Along of Lame Deer; and Charles McGraw of Helena, a member of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
On first blush, it seems like a reasonable list. Gary Perry and Sue Dickenson are identified by party, but others are not. Let’s look at the list a little bit, and fill in some blanks.
- Peggy Beltrone is a Democrat
(although as a county commissioner, those elections are non-partisan)County elections are partisan. My mistake. - Bob Raney, who is not only a Democrat, but serves on the PSC, which are partisan elections.
- Pat Judge, who, judging from his biography, certainly leans left, as does the MEIC.
- Dave Ryan works for NCAT, a group that is very big into the whole climate change hysteria.
- Gloria Flora, who heads up an advocacy group.
- Steve Loken, a Missoula builder affiliated with Center for Resourceful Building Technology, which seems to be down at this time, but his company bills itself as “providing quality workmanship that is environmentally responsible.”
- Mark Brandt, of the Teamsters
- Charles McGraw, of the National Resources Defense Council, yet another advocacy group.
- Trudi Peterson, practitioner of environmentally sound ranching.
- Mary Fitzpatrick, of the Montana Conservation Voters, another advocacy group
- Robert Boettcher, an organic farmer
The only folks remaining are Republican legislator Gary Perry, 3 power industry guys, one of which appears to be the only actual scientist in the whole group, William Walks Along, and a science teacher.
Wow. 11 folks who, by their affiliations and/or professions, appear to be predisposed to the notion that climate change is caused by man. Then, there are 2 management level guys from the power companies who are most likely to avoid rocking the boat at all, one Republican legislator, one actual scientist (and a geophysicist at that), and the remainder seem likely to be chosen from the community at large.
When I was active in a couple of service groups, and we held nominations and elections for officers, we used to all make the sound of a train whistle, since we knew the deck was stacked, and we were going to be railroaded.
Well, let me just say, “Chugga chugga, chugga chugga, Whoo-Whoo.”
In the days ahead, we’re going to be looking at the meeting process that the CCAC used, and what role CCS played in the process, while also examining how it was covered in the media.
—
1http://www.mtclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O127F8903.pdf

14 Responses to “Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee, Part I”
By Dave Rye on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
Actually, County Commissioner candidates do run on a partisan basis in most if not all counties in Montana. Peggy Beltrone has clearly been identified as a Democrat in each of her races (not that it hurts her in Great Falls). Most MUNICIPAL elections except in Havre are the non-partisan races, which helps explain why Republican-leaning Billings has a Democratic Mayor and usually a majority-Democrat City Council.
The rest of your analysis is right on target.
I was a member of EQC when I was a freshman state senator in the early ’90s, since my fellow Republicans who had seniority thought of it as a committee that basically just wasted time and money. I came to view it as a good committee for people who have a basic distrust of capitalism, as well as for alarmists who aren’t happy unless there’s a crisis to which to respond, so they can demonstrate how essential it is to have an activist government led by–who else?–themselves.
Geez, is Raney on EQC
By Dave Rye on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
Oops. I hit “submit” too soon.
I started to say “Raney was on EQC when *I* was.” Then-Speaker John Mercer caused a bit of an uproar in ‘93 by refusing to reappoint Bob to EQC even though Bob wanted back on.
By Mark T on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
Down, boy.
I am genuinely surprised that you want scientists on this panel at all, Craig, given your distrust for them as evidenced in your many posts to date disputing the consensus view of the scientific community.
Seems to me you’d just want advocates, and you got advocates of the wrong stripe, and that’s the burr in your saddle.
I must note, however, that Mary Fitzpatrick manages to work her way into most of these processes. That’s truly annoying.
By James on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
This is a good post regarding the Climate Change Advisory Committee, Montanans should be more informed on the built in bias of the entire process. I’ve looked at some of the affiliations of the individual members before in disbelief, nice job documenting them so well.
According to your reference and the Action Plan, the Advisory Committee are drawing off ’scientists’ on the Scientific Advisory Panel.
“The Scientific Advisory Committee will assist the CCAC by providing scientific expertise and advice on specific fact-finding issues.”
“Dan Fagre, Global Change Research Program, U.S. Geological Survey”
“David McGinnis, Grants and Sponsored Programs Office, Montana State University”
“Susan Capalbo, Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership, Montana State University”
Ms. Capalbo has been at this for a long time, as has Mr. Fagre. It’s in all of these folks best interest to continue any and all funding and research towards the cause.
“Ted Dodge, National Carbon Offset Coalition”
What can I say about Mr. Dodge and the Butte based NCOC, he deals in CO2 with the CCX. I’ve seen his presentation and after questioning he admitted that Europe doesn’t even deal in certain types of offsets that NCOC does.
‘Don Potts, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana’
‘Steve Running, Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana’
I’m sure most have read or seen where Mr. Running is coming from (ie. price of petrol), but the two actually work together for the cause.
-
The minutes from the last EQC meeting should be available mid-April according to Sonja. They will(should) highlight the many requests for the economic impact of this whole charade. The newspaper articles surely didn’t capture the attitude of the public and council members from the meeting on March 10th.
I believe it is very important to remember where the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) sit in all this, in my opinion they play a big role in Montana’s (and 19 other state’s) future.
Thanks and I look forward to further entries regarding this.
By Pete Talbot on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
I could be wrong, but I think Great Falls Commissioner Beltrone was a supporter of the coal-fired generating plant that was planned for the G.F. area, so she might be in the same camp as the power industry guys.
By A Scientist on Apr 3, 2008 | Reply
As a scientist with 30 years of experience I can assure you that a consensus of scientists does support the AGW hypthesis.
As a scientist with 30 years of experience I can also tell you that science is not about consensus.
This especially true when we consider “climate science”, which is a relatively new discipline largely driven by computer modeling.
None of models so far constructed does a very good job of predicting more than a few years forward. They are after all based on weather models from the 1970’s. Remember how good those worked. Heck think how good the more recent ones work more than 5 days forward.
The AGW hypothesis has yet to be proven. Warming stopped 10 years ago and ocean temperatures haven’t gone up since we started accurately measuring them 5 years ago.
None of the models can explain why we are seeing cooling now.
While this doesn’t dis-prove AGW, it doesn’t very good that two of the big measures that would support the hypothesis are going in the opposite direction from where its proponents (Gore, Hansen, Trebenth, etc) say it should.
Oh, and to top it all off CO2 is being emitted faster today than 10 years ago. The models say this should accelerate warming - not slow or reverse it.
By Pete Talbot on Apr 4, 2008 | Reply
I stand corrected. Further research indicates that Great Falls Commissioner Beltrone was the only commissioner to vote against a rezoning of agricultural land to allow the Highwood generating plant to be built. My apologies to Ms. Beltrone.