IREA more interesting than expected

RC has a post on a leaked letter from the little-known IREA (Intermountain rural electric authority, since you ask) (though to be fair I should point out that desmog seem to have posted first). The IREA are worried because most of their lectric comes from coal and so are trying a PR campaign to persuade people that GW is all solar, or somesuch junk. RP Jr is up in arms about this, from his usual perspective - policy, with no interest in the science.

The frustrating thing about this is how pointless it all is. Most of the IREA "briefing" is straightforward junk, or simply misleading. There is, of course, room for an interesting discussion about *policy*. IREA don't want that, or they would just leave out all the science. They could say "we accept the std.consensus on the science of global warming - now, lets get on and discuss what to do about it!". Clearly, they are afraid of doing that - I rather suspect, ironically enough, because of their own ignorance. They have, unwittingly perhaps, accepted the over-the-top message that GW is automatically catastrophic, and so find themselves obliged to deny GW. Which is boring.

Of course, if they were going to discuss *policy*, there would be no reason to slip Michaels $100k - he is getting that for his views on the science.

Finally, RP praises the IREA for their description of how they view different policy options. They view a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system as the least desirable options. They support voluntary programs and investments in technology. They also view the participation of India and China as essential to any international agreement. They want all industries involved in any political action on greenhouse gases, and they don't want the economy to be harmed. Why is this weird? Because don't-harm-the-economy is what everyone wants; because India-and-China is code for no-Kyoto; because voluntary programs means near-nothing. This isn't a discussion of policy options: its an attempt to prevent any action. The obvious solution is a carbon tax. Easy to do, and is directly to the problem. IREA don't want that because its very bad for coal burners, which they are, by proxy.

More like this

Here's how I would have liked to have introduced this post: The good news is that, other than for an increasingly marginalized minority, the focus of attention on climate policy has shifted from the reality of global warming to the economic tools needed to address the problem. Sadly, climate change…
We still aren't going to get a presidential debate devoted to science. So far, though,we have the Democratic nominee's elaborated responses to 14 questions put to him and his Republican counterpart by the Science Debate 2008 group. Here's two of Barack Obama's responses, with italicized annotation…
From The Top American Science Questions: 2012. Which starts with: "Whenever the people are well-informed," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "they can be trusted with their own government." Well, that's you yanks totally f*ck*d then, ha ha. Not that we're any better off. still, at least we manage to believe…
InsideClimateNews (who I've been unimpressed with before) via Brian at Eli's tell us that Exxon may claim to favour a carbon tax, but aren't exactly enthusiastic about it. Because someone else was saying it, my natural initial reaction was to disagree; but having poked their sources a bit, it looks…