When we start calling bureaucrats “czars” is it any wonder that we attract socialists?

The Washington Times has just uncovered the dirt on Barack Obama’s earth friendly pick for climate change Czar(ina)

This may prove to be one of the most difficult jobs in the new administration in terms of criticism and public attacks.  There will be roadblocks placed from the front by those who disagree about how to regulate carbon emissions, and then there will be many of volleys of arrows launch from the back by the environmental lobby who cant stand to think that any person but them could make money by cleaning up the Earth.

Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said  that “Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector.”

Those are good priorities for the office of “climate change czar,” but socialists are certainly not the ones who will make real progress on environmental problems.  Without regulating our economy further back into the pre-industrial age (god save us from recession),  there will need to be well managed and directed investments made by the private sector to update power plants, invent new energy saving technologies, discover new ways to trap and store green house gas etc.  The real changes come from investment by entrepreneurs who develop new methods and new technology, then apply them to make a profit.  Sorry, that is just how it works.

In the words of Robert Kennedy, “Obama’s vision of de-carbonizing our economy begins with a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system designed to put downward pressure on carbon emissions. He will invest billions to revamp the nation’s antiquated high-voltage power transmission system and press for cost-saving building and appliance standards that would cut our energy demand by half.”  These are goals every free market advocate could agree with.

This writer just hopes Obama’s newpick does not forget to do first things first, especially as the arrows begin to fly.

On Election Day, CNN Headline News interviewed Standard Carbon’s Brendan Woodward to discuss the carbon footprint of the presidential election. In the full interview, political hypocrisy was discussed as both candidates have proposed cap and trade regulations, but not chosen to follow them on a voluntary basis.

The climate change impact of the two candidates was large-requiring the equivalent carbon offsets of more than 18 square miles of new forest to grow for 10 years.  For Barack Obama, this would have required about $700,000 to purchase enough carbon offsets, or a mere 1% of his 3/4 of a billion dollar campaign budget.

Air travel, commuting, office space, paper, direct mail, meetings and event, fundraisers, and get out the vote (GOTV) activities all contributed to each carbon footprint.

Can we actually reduce CO2 if the president is full of hot air?  Perhaps.  Watch the short segment that aired Tuesday morning:

We have contacted every Democrat congressional incumbent and asked them to make a commitment to carbon neutrality and offset the emissions from their election campaign.  This is not something unfamiliar to them.  Each member of , whether Democrat or Republican, has a carbon neutral DC Office through the Green the capitol initiative.  However, only individual action will make their campaign green.

The excuses from some congressional ‘leaders’ for not going green reflect on the pathetic approval rating that the current Congress has, which at a whopping 11% should not surprise.  “We don’t have enough time” was the excuse from John Conyers’ Democratic campaign which does not even have a Republican opponent.  Jackie Speier’s campaign in California responded that “this is a safe district, our race was settled at the primary.”   Frequent was the line that “it’s just too expensive.” This one we heard from Ed Perlmutter in Colorado and Ellen Tauscher in California who combined control nearly $2,000,000 in campaign funds, but could not afford $400-500 worth of carbon offsets.

Others, like congressman Jim McDermott’s campaign, are almost understandable, “we really don’t have a campaign, all that we do is go back and forth from the office to the bank and pick up checks.”  The reality is that most congressional “leaders” are just interested in keeping a low  profile and cashing checks when it gets close to election day.  Issues don’t matter.

We will keep trying…

With the absence of Federal rule making, Governors of the United States have led the charge on reducing CO2 and designing new greenhouse gas markets. In many ways, the debate over “should we do about climate change,” is already over. Something is being done and the voters are demanding it.

• In a NYT/CBS poll (2007), 30% of Republicans and 70% of democrats polled believed that global warming is a serious problem. CBS/NYT Environment Poll

• In the same poll, 78% of all respondents said that they “think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away.” Only 8% said that the government should do nothing (poll attached).

• The leading bill in the US Senate regarding climate change, the Lieberman-Warner Bill, assumes global warming is a threat. This bill has a cap 2.5 times more severe than the current phase of the Kyoto market, and extends past 2050. (Kyoto ends in 2012)

• California has already begun trading in advance of the AB 32 (California Climate Action Registry) cap and trade market. This cap-and-trade market becomes compulsory for California CO2 emitters in 2012.

• In August this year, six western states and two Canadian provinces (AZ, CA, NM, OR, WA, UT, BC & MTB) will announce the details of their plan to create a western regional carbon market requiring a 15% reduction in CO2 by 2020.

• The seven states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (CT, DE, ME, NH, NJ, NY, & VT) will begin to auction carbon emission permits at the end of this year with official auctions starting January 2009. These states have been trading carbon offsets since 2007.

• More than 20 US states have adopted renewable portfolio standards requiring renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. Federal renewable standards have been proposed.

• The global market for Carbon dioxide (carbon offsets) was over $62 Billion dollars in 2007. It will far exceed $100 Billion this year.

• In a poll of 3,703 participants in the global carbon market by PointCarbon, 80% believe that there will be a post-2012 international agreement to replace Kyoto, regardless of the United States’ participation.

• In the same poll, 60% believe that the US Federal government will participate in this agreement. Existing carbon markets in the US will almost certainly allow some participation, as the price for carbon credits could be cheaper in a global market.

We launched our federal campaign package at the beginning of this month to help Congressman, Senators, and even Presidential Candidates keep track of their global warming pollution and offset it. So far, so good.

I have been calling Congressional campaigns all day and usually get in touch with a Communications Director or campaign manager  within two tries. Then I email them this form to calculate their carbon footprint.  It is really easy to be a carbon neutral campaign.

Our program is the only one in the country for politicians to offset their greenhouse gas with reputable carbon offsets from US based projects. We are using the same high quality offsets as Speaker Pelosi’s Green the Capitol Initiative, and the worksheet for calculating a campaign carbon footprint is simple to use.

The bottom line: there is no excuse in this election for political campaigns to not be carbon neutral. More to come…

If you are still not convinced that climate change is actually happening, why bother fighting its solution? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will result in a more efficient use of limited resources, like oil and gas, and it will help us achieve energy independence and efficient use of renewable energy.

This video makes a good point: inaction on climate change is not an option. As the climate continues to change, this will become increasingly apparent. If climate change is debunked, then I will eat my words and be happy! Just watch the video…