If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

Well, there’s nothing like calm, dispassionate debate.

First, of course, is the news that James Hansen — alarmist extraordinaire — has decried the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill as “a monstrous absurdity…less than worthless!” We’ve noted Mr. Hansen’s preference for a carbon tax (the lesser of evils, we would say), but this is a strong rebuke to the absurdity and obscenity of the House’s recently passed legislation.

Then, of course, there was Al Gore’s week weak. In a short period of time he managed to claim the U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance.” And then there was that high point of civil discourse in which His Furor likened the alarmist notion of global warming to the threat posed by the Nazis.

Just like we wouldn’t want to call the bottom in the stock market, we won’t officially declare this week the high point of the global warming hysteria fever. But if there’s a global warming shark, consider it jumped.

1) Tell our readers a little about IER’s history and its recent expansion in Washington, D.C.,

Our CEO, Robert Bradley, founded IER in 1989 as a repository for his scholarly endeavors with respect to free markets and energy policy. In addition, Dr. Bradley, a prolific writer and lecturer, worked to educate others in the free-market community to apply their philosophy to energy policy. Over the last few years, it became clear to our Board of Directors that energy policy was dominating the agenda in Washington and that the free-market perspective was absent from the debates. To fill that void, the Board expanded IER by opening an office in D.C. The results speak for themselves. IER led the effort to educate Congress and then-President Bush about the need to lift the offshore drilling ban. Today, we are elevating the dialogue on the fallacies of “green jobs”, cap and trade, and the real economic consequences of artificially increasing the price of energy. We are proud to say that we are considered one of Washington’s most respected all-energy-all-the-time think tanks.

2) In your research, what have you found about the cost to average American families from some of the biggest-buzz energy plans floated by politicians?

Across the board, these energy plans—cap and trade, renewable portfolio mandate, CAFÉ standards, subsidies for “green jobs”—will significantly change the American economy. We’re not just talking about an increase in electricity bills and gas prices. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and it affects everything we need, from clothes to food to pharmaceuticals. Every product, every service, every facet of our economy requires energy, and if energy prices go up, so will everything else.

3) What do you think is the biggest misperception by Americans about energy policy, costs, etc?

The biggest misconception about energy policy is that it is possible to obtain the same reliable and efficient energy we enjoy today from politically correct sources of energy, like wind and solar. Unfortunately, these energy sources are completely reliant on government subsidies to exist.

While proponents of these sources may tell you that we can replace coal,
oil, and natural gas with wind and solar and still have affordable and reliable energy, they’re wrong. The fact is, if wind and solar were affordable and reliable, they’d already be in the market in their own right, and not be dependent on our tax dollars to exist.

Wind and solar may have a future, but they will never replace the efficient, abundant, and affordable energy sources we rely on today.

4) “Green Jobs” seems to be a panacea that can cure the blind, make the lame walk, etc. What has IER found about the real nature of “green jobs”?

Well, you’re right that so-called “green jobs” are President Obama’s economic cure-all.

Unfortunately, our research shows that he’s selling little more than snake oil. In fact, one of our studies, which looked at Spain’s experience with a green jobs plan, showed that green jobs actually kill real jobs. For every green job that was created in Spain, 2.2 were destroyed in the productive economy. What’s more, out of every 10
green jobs created, nine no longer exist. To service the subsidies (debt) for these jobs, Spain’s energy prices would have to increase by 31 percent.

5) What’s your prognosis for the future of American energy policy? Will rationality return?

We certainly hope so! IER is committed to doing our part to inject truth into this debate. We consider our work to be very important, and will continue to educate consumers and taxpayers about the dangers of excessive government intervention into energy markets.

Editor’s note: We thank Tom and IER, like all of our interviewees, for taking the time to share their expertise and opinions. If you know someone who would make for an enlightening interview, please contact us at editor(at)thechillingeffect.org.

The chair of a Senate committee in charge of writing a global warming bill said there would be no effort to draft the legislation until September because the chamber is too busy grappling with how to write a massive health care reform bill.

The optimistic way of reading this news is that Congress is addressing more serious problems and that Senators have looked at the Waxman-Markey bill and seen a heaping pile of unpleasant policy. Unfortunately, it’s still too early to buy into an optimistic analysis. This is still a major threat to America’s economy, and the president continues to push economy-neutering efforts.

“The first step in making a difference is the recognition of what we’ve done wrong so far. But we can’t just stop there. We must not be beholden to economic growth at the expense of our world and the lives of those who are most vulnerable,” he said.

“In the face of climate change, do we give up and treat it as a lost cause? No. We are people of faith. We can turn the tide if we commit ourselves to acting together to make our planet a safer space.”

Everyone has their own faith, and to each their own. But the further we remove rational cost-benefit analysis and hard science from our view of the environment, the likelier we are to do more harm than good. Speaking of which:

A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.