Montana Climate Scientist Warns of Falling for "Happy Science"

By Eric Grimsrud
Retired MSU Professor and Climate Change Expert

Citizens of Montana are being misinformed on the single most important detail concerning the effects of our increasing levels of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s temperature.

I am referring to what is called the “sensitivity” of CO2, which is defined to be the temperature increase caused by a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Direct measurements of temperature and CO2 levels over the past 700,000 years — as revealed by the ice core records of Antarctica and Greenland — show that the total sensitivity of CO2 is about 6.5 degrees Celsius. About half of this has been attributed to “fast” feedback effects (changes in water vapor and clouds) that become apparent in a few decades and the other half is due to subsequent “slow” feedback effects (such changes in the sheet ice of Greenland and Antarctica) that show up over the course of a few centuries. All of this is thoroughly explained in “Target Atmospheric CO2” in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, volume 2, pages 217-231.

Magnitude of change

The most recent ploy of the professional deniers of CO2’s effects is to acknowledge that increased CO2 will cause an increase in temperature, but then claim that the magnitude of this effect will be too small to be of importance. An excellent example of this national effort is being provided in Montana by H. Leighton Steward who presents himself as a scientific expert on the subject of climate change. He is the director of EOG, a gas and oil company formerly known as Enron. He is also the spokesperson for a fossil fuel advocacy group called Plants Need CO2, whose advertisements have been shown frequently throughout Montana.

Steward assures us that the Earth’s temperature can increase by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius — even if we let carbon dioxide levels increase without constraints during the rest of this century and into the next. Thus, he is claiming that the sensitivity of CO2 will always be less than 0.2 degrees C, far less than the measured magnitudes referred to above.

He bases his comforting prediction entirely on century-old, oversimplistic theory that is contradicted by modern physical principles and direct observations. His model is of no relevance to the real world because it accounts only for the absorption of infrared radiation by the greenhouse gases and does not also include the emission of this radiation by these same molecules. While this deficiency in Steward’s model becomes apparent upon inspection of any basic textbook on the subject, it is also revealed in the layperson-friendly article “Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect — Parts Two and Three” available on the web at www.scienceofdoom.com.

Disconnected from reality

In fact, the emission of infrared radiation in all directions by the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere is just as important as their absorption. That is why Steward’s predictions of CO2’s sensitivity are far too low and entirely disconnected from reality. In addition, the more correct model shows that the temperature effects of increased CO2 levels will continue almost endlessly into future decades and centuries — while Steward tells us that CO2’s effect is already “saturated” and, therefore, future generations need not be concerned about future increases in CO2.

Unfortunately, Steward’s lethal message appears to have been well-received and additionally amplified by powerful fossil fuel interests in Montana. I have tried to create a line of communication with both the Montana Petroleum Association and Steward in an effort to correct this critically important detail of future warming — without success. Therefore, I am sharing my own thoughts here directly with the citizens of Billings. Please beware of so-called “scientific experts” bearing tales of “happy science” that attempt to take CO2 emissions off the hook in our efforts to address climate change. While such presentations might be driven by legitimate and understandable financial concerns, they are also in direct opposition to the laws of Mother Nature and have a very high probability of leading to environmental catastrophes in the coming decades and centuries.

Eric Grimsrud, emeritus chemistry professor at Montana State University in Bozeman, lives near Kalispell. His website is www.ericgrimsrud.com.

Paying Our Fair Share

By Sen. Christine Kaufmann
The Policy Institute Board Vice-President and State Senator, District 41

Originally printed in the Helena IR April 14, 2011

In the next few days I will join with thousands of Montanans to make an investment in the common good. By pooling our resources we’ll increase opportunity for all Montanans and provide a strong foundation for our economy. That’s right, we’ll pay our taxes and we’ll get all those things that make our communities stronger and promote the kind of shared prosperity that our state depends on.

We get safe communities. I certainly could not pay for police and fire protection, clean air and water, a public health system to protect me from communicable diseases, a criminal justice system, or disaster services — all on my own. So I’m happy to join with my neighbors through government to ensure those services are there for all of us.

We get functioning communities. We are assured the children in our neighborhood are learning academic and life skills in the free public education system to help them participate productively in the social, economic and cultural life of the community. The financial systems function behind the scenes to allow for the creation of wealth. Social safety-net programs are there for our neighbors and for us when the economy doesn’t work equally well for all of us. We are all safer when our neighbors are secure. I could never pay for this on my own.

We get livable communities. They grow in a more or less orderly manner. Streets, sidewalks and trails seem designed to provide a way to get where we want to go. The infrastructure delivers water, heat and electricity and carries away garbage and human waste. There’s a thriving arts community and ready recreational opportunities. It doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when government teams up with the private sector to make it happen.

We all get safe, functioning and livable rural and urban communities. But who should pay for them? That is a central question in a democracy. The foundation of progressive policy is fair taxation. It is a necessary good. Those who benefit from public investment must contribute to it. Those who benefit more and have greater resources should contribute more.
It’s not fair that low wage earners have the same tax rate as the wealthiest in our community. It’s not fair that the oil and gas industry gets a tax “holiday” for the first 12 or 18 months of drilling when they are making huge profits extracting a nonrenewable resource. It’s not fair that owners of mansions pay the same property tax rates as their neighbors who are forced from their family homes by increased property values.

I introduced bills this session that would have addressed these inequities. Such policies are not popular — in either party. Politicians take polls and ask people and businesses if they like paying taxes and want to pay more. Not surprisingly, most of them say “no.”

It’s easier to pledge “no new taxes” than to start a conversation about safe, functioning and livable communities or how to make the tax system more balanced and fair. We can’t even pass bills to close tax loopholes in the system we have. The fact is taxes should be raised for some of us. The costs to support community structures and services we expect go up just like everything else. Without a system of fair and adequate taxation, everything collapses. We may not enjoy paying taxes, but if we love our state and our country, we should at least acknowledge it’s an investment worth making. Our lives depends on it.

Sen. Christine Kaufman’s district includes much of the west side of Helena and the Helena Valley.

Rich vs. Poor

By Ken Toole
President, The Policy Institute

The person who defines the question we ask defines the answer we get. In the Legislature the question is, what services must we cut?

But, the real problem is that more and more money is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And those individuals are contributing less and less to the cost of public services.

This problem has been building across Republican and Democratic administrations for the last 30 years.

The super rich in our society want us to continue focusing on the deficit and Social Security at the national level and cutting school funding and human services locally. It keeps us from asking what we ought to expect from them as fellow citizens.

Just who are these "super rich" people? The top 1 percent of families in America control 34.6 percent of all the wealth in the country. The next 9 percent control another 38.5 percent. That leaves 90 percent of us with just 26.9 percent of all the wealth in the country.

For those individuals in the top one-hundredth of one percent, the average annual income is over $27 million per year. The bottom 90 percent of us earn a little over $31,000 per year. We have not seen this kind of "wealth disparity" since the turn of the century when the Robber Barons ruled the country. Guess what? They're back.

Though we have a two-party system, it really doesn't offer much of a choice. Historically, the two parties were different. The Democrats were the party of "Big Labor" and the Republicans were the party of "Big Business."

And these two interest groups had very different political agendas. But, as organized labor began to decline through the 1970s and 1980s, Democratic politicians turned to big corporations for financial support. And, of course, this began to effect how Democrats vote. Today, there is little partisan disagreement on the big three traditional themes of Big Business; privatize, deregulate and cut taxes.

As a result, taxes on the very wealthiest Americans have been reduced through both Republican and Democratic administrations. The top income tax rate levied on the wealthiest Americans dropped from 66.4 percent in 1945 to 32.4 percent in 2010.

We have deregulated everything from banks to electricity to home mortgages. We have privatized public services from custodians to prisons, enabling corporate interests to generate profits in these "new markets".

All of this has encouraged wealth to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands while the middle class has dramatically lost financial ground.

Here in Montana we are not insulated from the national trend. In 1999 the Legislature cut the rate on business equipment in half. While the measure helped some small businesses, the lion's share of the tax cuts went to the very largest corporations in Montana, among them the most profitable oil companies in the world.

In the middle of a budget crisis in 2003 the Montana Legislature cut both the income tax rate on the wealthiest Montanans and the capital gains tax levied on those fortunate enough to have income from an investment portfolio.

The non-partisan Montana Budget and Policy Center reports that just two years later over half of the money from the income tax rate cuts alone went to families earning over $500,000 per year.

These cuts, among others, have helped to shift the cost of paying for public services to Montanans who work for a paycheck. But, we are not hearing about that in this legislature. In between the goofy bills about guns and succession from the Union, all we hear about is the need for more and more cuts to services.

Almost no one dares propose increasing taxes on the wealthy or big corporations. Instead all we hear about is cutting services and who gets hurt. Imagine how different this debate would be if the question was, how do we make sure everyone is paying their fair share?

End of Session Update

Thanks so much to the Partnership for Montana's Future for providing this end-of-session update, and for all your hard work during this tumultuous session.

Federal Funds
Virtually all federal funds have been restored to health and human services. Although the federal funds were not designated in the amendatory veto, enough was added back to fully restore federal funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, Low-Income Energy Assistance, and Title X Family Planning.

DPHHS
• The current budget restored $123 million to DPHHS, brining the current total to roughly $23 million below the governor’s proposed budget.
• Cuts to Healthy Montana Kids, Big Sky Rx, and personal services for seniors and people with disabilities were fully restored.
• Tobacco use prevention, which was eliminated entirely in the Legislature’s original budget, was restored to $9.4 million for the biennium, reflecting $7 million in cuts from the governor’s originally proposed budget.
• Although federal funding for family planning was restored, state funding appears to still be eliminated in the final budget.

K-12
Base aid funding for K-12 public schools throughout the state was cut by $5 million compared to the governor’s proposed budget. We are awaiting additional information regarding other potential cuts in K-12. The result will likely be laid off teachers and staff, larger classrooms, compromised quality, and larger local property taxes.

Higher Education
The final budget negotiated by the governor restored $15.5 million in funding to higher education in Montana. The higher education budget is still approximately $15 million under the governor’s originally proposed spending levels. Tuition increases may be necessary to make up for the cut in state funding, putting higher education further out of reach for Montana families.

Pay Plan
The Legislature cut a $21 million pay plan for public employees that do the work that keep our communities safe, healthy, and educated all across the state. This is the first time in history that the Legislature has rejected a proposed pay plan that the unions and the governor bargained as the law directs. By fiscal year 2013, base salaries for state employees will have been frozen for five calendar years. Additionally, the legislative rejection of the bargained pay plan could jeopardize all future pre-session negotiations.

Cuts Were Unnecessary
Although we should take a moment to appreciate our successes in fighting back the worst of the cuts to the public programs that help make our communities safe, healthy, and educated, we must also remember that the remaining cuts were as unnecessary as they are damaging.
• The Legislature could have passed any number of sensible bills that would have increased state revenues by closing tax loopholes and making sure that all taxpayers are paying what they owe under our current tax laws. Instead, they rejected every such proposal presented, including a bill to make sure out-of-state taxpayers pay the taxes they owe when they sell vacation homes in Montana and a bill that would limit the use of foreign tax shelters by multi-national corporations.
• Instead, they chose to give $16 million away in the form of a business equipment tax cut, with the largest benefits going to multinational corporations like Exxon Mobile and Conoco Phillips. THERE’S STILL TIME TO CALL THE GOVERNOR (444-3111) AND ASK HIM TO VETO SB372.
• The Legislature also refused to acknowledge and budget for an extra $27 million that their nonpartisan legislative staff anticipate will be coming into the state over the next two years.

No Fooling with our Future Rally

Come to the capitol this Friday, April 1, 2011, to protest the deep cuts that are being made in the Montana Legislature to social services, education, public safety and more.

More on Hypocrisy

Last week, The Policy Institute released a report titled, “Profiles in Hypocrisy: Montana Legislators Assail Government Spending While Benefitting from Farm Subsidy Programs.” The report identifies thirty-three current Montana legislators who benefitted from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009, sixteen of them to the tune of more than $100,000 each, and one, Rep. Janna Taylor (R-Dayton), by more than $1 million.

At the same time that these legislators are receiving regular farm subsidy payments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many of them are complaining loudly that the government is “out of control,” and are gutting important programs that benefit Montana’s most vulnerable citizens. This is hypocrisy at its worst.

When questioned by a reporter on the issue, two of the biggest beneficiaries – Rep. Taylor and Sen. Bruce Tutvedt (R-Kalispell) – responded by defending farm subsidy programs. That’s not the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the legislators who take large subsidy payments from the government while repeatedly attacking government programs and government in general in the halls of the legislature.

The public should know about legislators who cut the benefits of just about everyone else – from the elderly (Big Sky RX), to kids from single-parent homes (Big Brothers Big Sisters), to low-income children (Healthy Montana Kids), to those struggling with addiction (tobacco prevention programs) – while silently accepting the largess of the federal government to support their own business interests.

And let’s be honest, if many of these legislators really got what they say they want – drastically smaller government and the exclusion of the federal government in state matters – the programs they depend on for the survival of their farms and ranches would be gone. They might even find themselves needing the very programs they despise so much.

But you don’t hear much about farm subsidies in the halls of the Montana Legislature. Perhaps that’s because of the highly partisan dynamic of the current legislature and the fact that more than ninety-eight percent of all of the farm subsidy payments received by members of the legislature went to Republicans. These are members of the same “conservative” majority that promises to bring government “under control.” These legislators are either blinded by their own political posturing or they are so arrogant they just don’t care.

“(These) federal subsidies are necessary in order to ensure an affordable and abundant food supply,” Sen. Tutvedt said in response to the “Profiles in Hypocrisy” report. While that may be true, it’s also true that many children in Montana need the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) so they can go to the doctor when they’re sick. Low-income seniors need the Big Sky RX program to get the prescriptions they need. And kids trapped in abusive and violent home situations need child protective workers to protect them.

It’s really all a matter of values. Of course we all value an affordable and abundant food supply, but is that the end of the good that government can do in our communities? No. Beyond building our roads and keeping our food prices stable, government can and does do many other good things for our communities. And when it does, we all benefit with healthier children, safer streets, an educated workforce, a cleaner environment and in so many other ways.

Let’s not forget that – like it or not – we are all in this together. And let’s be realistic about how the world really operates. The idea is that we all put into the system, and we all benefit from it. Let’s not selectively remember when we put in, and forget when we take out.

Profiles in Hypocrisy Report Just Released

Common themes are emanating from the Montana Legislature this session: Government is bad. Government programs are bad. Spending money on government programs is bad. The worst level of government? The federal government. Federal mandates are bad. Federal regulations are bad. Federal safety laws are bad. Even federal money is bad.

But wait, maybe not all federal money is bad. Some of the same legislators who rail against government in general, the federal government in particular and all the evils contained therein, have benefitted from large amounts of money to their farm and ranch operations through federal farm subsidy programs over the years.

These payments come in the form of Conservation Subsidies, Disaster Subsidies and Commodity Subsidies for agricultural products like wheat, barley and canola. And many of these payments are quite large. Sixteen Montana legislators benefitted from payments to their operations in excess of $100,000.00 over the time period highlighted in this report (1995-2009), with one House member’s operation bringing in more than one million dollars.

This report looks at all of the currently-serving legislators who benefitted from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009, noting the top beneficiaries juxtaposed against their expressed views on governmental programs in general. It is important to note that this report is not meant as a critique of farm subsidy programs. The point is to show the hypocrisy that exists between the professed ideological viewpoints of some legislators and their personal willingness to benefit from the very types of programs they publicly condemn. Read the rest of the report here.