Leaving a Trail

COST OF A COMMITTEE: WORTH OF STATE COMMISSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE IS QUESTIONED

Panel designed to deal with global warming has created its own big carbon footprint

RALEIGH

A state committee charged five years ago with fighting global warming has added more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than it's taken away.

And the committee has cost taxpayers more than $70,000 to have 20 meetings over four years, with few concrete results.

Created in 2005, the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change studies the potential effects of global warming on North Carolina, and what, if anything, the state can do about it. When the General Assembly established the committee, it ordered a final report, with policy proposals, by Nov. 1, 2006.

That report still has not been published. The committee did approve a list of "interim" recommendations in 2007, but other than that has taken no substantive action.

In the eyes of its critics, the committee's continued existence illustrates a tendency in state government to endlessly study an issue without making much progress. This is especially true on the issue of global warming, because everyone agrees that North Carolina, on its own, can't do anything to meaningfully affect global climate change.

One of the committee's co-chairmen, John Garrou of Winston-Salem, said that the committee will finish a report by the end of this year. He said the report will suggest ways that North Carolina might save energy and reduce greenhouse gases while simultaneously helping its economy.

"We've been in existence now for four years, and it's time to do our thing," Garrou said. "I'd like for us to have that deadline. In the past, we've always said, ‘Well, we'll just get another year and get it done the next time.'"

Despite its low output, the committee has used up significant resources, mostly related to travel expenses among committee members and guest speakers. An analysis of the committee's driving records alone shows that the committee's "carbon footprint" over its entire existence is more than three times what an average U.S. household emits in a year.

Critics see a troublesome irony in a committee that's meant to promote efficiency but that burns through fossil fuels -- and money -- while frequently getting its deadline extended.

One of the critics, Sen. Andrew Brock, R-Davie, recently called for the committee to be disbanded.

"I'm all for saving energy and saving the environment," Brock said. "What's the most efficient way? Well this committee is the most inefficient way."

The committee's supporters say that it's doing important work, and that despite the lack of a finished report, the detailed study of global warming in itself is valuable.

"Its mission, as I envision it, is to plan and discuss the impact of sea-level rise and temperature change, and yes, it's quite extensively gone into those areas," said Joe Hackney, the speaker of the N.C. House.

Hackney and Garrou said that it is silly to denounce the committee because of its supposed carbon footprint. It's a trivial complaint, they said, because any group doing important work needs to have meetings, and those meetings sometimes require people to travel long distances.

Hackney , D-Orange, said he also feels that the committee's monetary cost is nominal. The four-year cost of $74,071.23 -- or about $18,000 a year -- is a tiny amount when considered in the context of the $20 billion state budget, he said.

John Hood, the president of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, said that the issue of global warming has little traction with the public right now. His foundation, a conservative research group, has sharply criticized the global-warming committee because the group believes that the committee was set up to favor a liberal view of global warming.

"Whatever interest there may have been (among voters) in legislating on climate change evaporated when North Carolina's unemployment hit 10 percent," Hood said.

‘Junk science'?

The committee's 20 meetings have typically consisted of presentations from climate experts. The meetings take place in Raleigh, and the 34 members of the committee drive in from all across the state. Many of the guest speakers have been flown in from out of state.

Taxpayer money is used to reimburse the committee members and the guest speakers for all of that travel, plus meals and lodging while they are in Raleigh.

Brock suggested that committee members meet by teleconference or take public transportation to the state capital. Or, he said, not meet at all and instead try to promote energy efficiency in their local communities.

Brock rejects the conclusion of many scientists that rising global temperatures caused by carbon dioxide from automobiles and factories will severely harm society unless humans enact strong policies to reduce emissions. He referred to the revelation last year that some scientists had manipulated data in order to overstate the temperature increase. Also, he said that state policies or laws aimed at combating global warming would only hurt North Carolina's economy.

"The Earth will take care of itself," Brock said. "We can't abuse it, we can't go crazy. But as long as we keep things in moderation, like we do, we'll be in good shape. But the last thing we need to do is penalize businesses in North Carolina based on bogus claims of a junk science."

Among scientists, there is virtual consensus that human activity has contributed to the warming of the planet. Even experts who are skeptical of the prevailing climate models acknowledge that human-produced greenhouse gases cause the Earth to warm. Disagreement occurs as to how severe the effects will be, and what, if anything, humans can or should do about it.

Hackney said that the potential for adverse consequences of global warming -- from rising sea levels on the Outer Banks to decreased agricultural output -- makes it imperative that North Carolina take the issue seriously and study it thoroughly. He dismissed criticism of the climate-change committee, a committee he used to lead before he became speaker of the House.

"I think it's just fringe-right rhetoric from people who are trying to renew their membership in the Flat Earth Society," Hackney said.

30 tons of carbon

A rough estimate of the committee's carbon footprint can be determined by looking at its travel records, which show how many miles its members were reimbursed for driving. Over four years, committee members and guest speakers drove 60,358.5 miles.

Assuming typical gas mileage, that amount of driving can be expected to pump about 30 tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. An average U.S. household produces about 10 tons of carbon dioxide in a year.

In actuality, the committee's carbon footprint is significantly larger. In addition to all that travel by automobile, more than 15 airplane trips were associated with the committee and paid for out of its budget. Most were flights for guest speakers from out of state. Others were for a legislative staffer who was working with the committee to attend conferences and other meetings on climate change, including one in London.

In total, about $52,000 was spent on travel and associated expenses. An additional $18,000 was spent on temporary clerical work by legislative aides working for the committee. And $3,600 was used to pay for committee members to attend a conference in Raleigh.

Garrou, a co-chairman of the committee with state Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, defended the committee's activities.

"It will take collective action to address this issue," he said. "It cannot be addressed by atomizing society and having everyone stay in a cocoon."

Unlike most committee members, Garrou did not apply for monetary reimbursements for his travel and expenses. He said he decided that he should volunteer his time without compensation. Garrou is married to state Sen. Linda Garrou, D-Forsyth, and is a retired corporate attorney with no background in climate issues. Senate leader Marc Basnight, D-Dare asked him to lead the committee.

Complex issues

Garrou said it has been difficult for the committee to reach consensus because of its large size and because of the diverse interests of its members. It is made up of legislators and nonlegislators who represent various industries and fields of expertise.

He also said that the complexity of the issues being studied has caused the committee to need more time. "I can't deny that up to now we haven't done what the legislature charged us to do, which was to produce a report, make findings, and give recommendations. But we will do that by the end of the fall," Garrou said.

He said that the report will focus on
recommendations that can both reduce greenhouse gases and help North Carolina in other ways, such as by reducing energy costs or creating jobs.

The recommendations could eventually end up in state law. Some elements of the committee's 2007 interim recommendations were included in several pieces of legislation, including a landmark energy law that requires power companies to begin meeting thresholds for renewable energy sources and energy-efficiency measures.

Garrou said he wants the committee to publish its report this fall and then to be dissolved. In its place, he suggested that the General Assembly create a new permanent committee, exclusively made of up legislators, to work on global-warming issues.