Monday, March 3, 2008

more on CCS

When I first wrote about the Center for Climate Strategies last November, after they made a pitch to the state's climate change sub-cabinet, I got a lengthy response from someone at a conservative think tank called the John Locke Foundation challenging the group's claims of economic reductions in GHG emissions and its overall approach. When I mentioned it last week in a post, I got another response.
I'm not really in a position to judge, so here's a little more info on CCS, the charges against it, and maybe a few thoughts at the end.
CCS is a non-profit that helps states develop responses to climate change through a stakeholder process. It's currently working in 16 states, according to its Web site.
The John Locke Foundation is a conservative think tank that tackles all kinds of issues. It criticizes CCS for developing plans that raise taxes and dig into personal freedoms. Here's a Web site it developed specifically against CCS, and here's an example of a column written by an editor there, Paul Chesser, who contacted me last November.
As for comments made in the comment about the cost of the CCS process, I got my information from a public notice issued by the state, which said the $180,000 contributed by the state would amount to about 16 percent of the total cost of the project.
I certainly don't have enough information to judge the accuracy of CCS's claim that many of the recommendations typically made under its stakeholder processes actually save money, but the criticisms levied by Chesser and others don't really prove otherwise. They attack CCS is an activist group "Funded by wealthy liberals" and challenge that climate change is even an issue worth addressing. But I'll let you form your own opinion.
For now, the state money to get the project moving is gone from the budget anyway.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You said:

"I'm not really in a position to judge..."

I say:

No one is asking you to judge. Just to do your job and report.

You said:

"I got my information from a public notice issued by the state, which said the $180,000 contributed by the state would amount to about 16 percent of the total cost of the project."

I say:

I'll stand corrected on this for now (with reservations, as it is way out of line with what every other state working with CCS has seen their commission process cost). But for someone who claims he's "not really in a position to judge," claiming that the state would get a "big bang for the buck" out of their investment is certainly making a favorable valuation judgment of CCS's work, isn't it?

You said:

"I certainly don't have enough information to judge the accuracy of CCS's claim that many of the recommendations typically made under its stakeholder processes actually save money, but the criticisms levied by Chesser and others don't prove otherwise."

I say:

This is far from the only criticism I and others have made, and had you read any of the Beacon Hill Institute peer reviews of their work (one is linked in comments on my last post), you'd see some legitimate criticism by PhD economists. But the fact that you only cite one op-ed and two of the lesser charges we've made demonstrates you're more interested in seeing the process advance than actually writing a balanced story about it for your newspaper. Try a little more reading and research than what you've demonstrated you've done here.

- Paul Chesser

stefan said...

Thanks for keeping me honest. And I did read the paper you linked to, but should probably spend more time with it.