Notice any similarities in these state climate websites?

Vermont (Governor's Commission on Climate Change)
Minnesota (Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group)
Iowa (Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council)
Montana (Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee)
New Mexico (New Mexico Climate Change Action Council and the New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group)
Florida (Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change)
Arizona (Arizona Climate Action Initiative)
Arkansas (Governor's Commission on Global Warming)


All these websites look the same because they're all hosted by the same organization and on the same computer system , no less.  The websites are hosted by an environmental group called Global Environment & Technology Foundation. 

Even more surprising is that the underlying content of the sites and the related state policies they report on are all products of a similar, if not related, left wing environmental organization called The Center for Climate Studies.  It would seem states have all but discarded any pretense of open-mindedness and now openly collaborate with a radical environmental group.  Indeed, the environmental policies (and climate websites) of twenty one states have been created by these organizations.

So, who is the Center for Climate Studies?  And why is it so entrenched in state environmental policy making? According to a watch group ...

"The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) advises states about how they can reduce global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within their borders. CCS was created by an advocacy group called the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC). Despite its prejudicial origins, CCS portrays itself as a technical advisory service organization that does not advocate for specific policies that will affect climate change. However, certain facts about CCS belie this claim and prove the group is controlled by global warming alarmists who seek solutions that will dramatically increase energy costs and raise taxes, in addition to infringing upon freedom and property rights."

Why does this not surprise me?

Still, what concerns me most about CCS's involvement is this sentence from their website:

"Typically, they include a comprehensive “portfolio” of actions in all sectors that use a combination of implementation methods, including traditional as well as innovative policy mechanisms. These include codes and standards; market-based systems; funding assistance; and other methods, which are adopted through administrative or legislative action at the state, regional, or national level."

What this says to me is that CCS intends to push through a comprehensive environmental policy, first  breaking the policy into smaller pieces to avoid public debate (i.e. alarm). In some instances it plans to avoid public debate by implementing its polices through administrative rules and in other cases by intentionally dis-organizing the policy objectives so it is not apparent to anyone outside the process. (for more on CCS read here and here).

Evidence of CCSs influence can already be found in policies making their way through Montpelier.  For example, one of CCS's standard policy recommendations is "Smart Growth". A paragraph containing this title was passed by the house last week which is somewhat surprising considering how the new policy substantially mimics the existing growth regulations set forth in 24 VSA 2791.  I can only assume the new language was included in the bill because its part of the standard "package" of policies provided by CCS. 

The ease with which CCS is able ito include seemingly arbitrary language in legislation is disconcerting considering  the immense effort  it took to get a bill I worked on to vote.  A hard-working team of law professors, students and a few interested legislators spent nearly four years gettint to a vote on simple change to the 'Corporations' statute. Yet, environmental regulations like the "smart growth" example mentioned above are passed willy nilly.

How are we ever going to build something that works if serious and important policy changes keep taking a back seat to farces like last week's energy bill?